Dismissed

K Malarkodi v. State Bank of India

DRT26 Sept 2022SA/217/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal applied for challenging an auction sale notice due to income fluctuations. The Tribunal found no procedural infirmities or valid grounds for relief, dismissing the application without costs while allowing liberty to approach the bank for settlement.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without cost; liberty pending to approach the bank for settlement.

K Malarkodi versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. No.217/2022 26.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 26^th day of September, 2022

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.217 of 2022

¶7

K.Malarkodi

¶8

No.28/1, North Agraharam, Valangaiman,

¶9

Thiruvarur District – 612 704.

¶10

R.Kalaivanan

¶11

No.28/1, North Agraharam, Valangaiman,

¶12

Thiruvarur District – 612 704. ….Applicants

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Kumbakonam Main Branch – 00864, 136-137, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam – 612 001. ….Respondent

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.Suresh Ethiraj, M.Gopi & R.Divyapriya. Counsel for Respondent : Dr.T.Ramasamy & S.Santhanakrishnan.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This SA is filed challenging the E-auction Sale Notice dated 13.04.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 19.05.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.48,62,915/-.

¶19

¶20

S.A. No.217/2022 26.09.2022

¶21

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicants that due to fluctuations in their income sources impacted by Covid-19, their account fell in arrears and therefore they had defaulted to the respondent bank herein. Notwithstanding the same, Ld. Counsel for applicants submits that they intend to negotiate with the respondent bank for an amicable settlement and to establish their bonafides, have complied with the interim condition imposed by this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel submits that applicants are intending to arrive at any settlement with the respondent bank by or before 31.10.2022 and prayed time till then for entering into a negotiated settlement.

¶22

Whereas, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. It is submitted that the Chief Manager of the branch is also present today in the Court to state that despite her attempts for a negotiated settlement with the respondent bank, applicants had been suggesting that somebody else will be interacting on their behalf for a settlement with the bank and submitting so, had sought for time. Ld. Counsel submitted that respondent bank had already demonstrated its actions during the earlier adjournments and as no sale has taken place on the scheduled date, the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. Ld. Counsel further submits that respondent bank will be open for any negotiation if applicants approach but, however it is their express stand that applicants had never approached respondent bank and on the other hand when respondent bank official visited the applicants, they did not evince any interest for arriving at a settlement.

¶23

¶24

S.A. No.217/2022 26.09.2022

¶25

Applicants could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice.

¶26

In the circumstances, as applicants could not establish any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without cost. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed. Liberty be with applicants to approach respondent bank by or before 31.10.2022 in terms of their undertaking before this Tribunal, failing which respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶28

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶29

A copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned as per extant guidelines.

¶30

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 26^th day of September, 2022)

¶31

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶32

PRESIDING OFFICER

K Malarkodi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Malarkodi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Vignesh versus City Union Bank Limited

Mrs S R Thilagavathi Prop S S Ramachandiran Agency W O Ramachandran versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Horn Bill Enterprises

Kasturi Aqua Needs versus City Union Bank Limited

ValavaneAssogane versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Mr a Thulasi Kumar S O Padmanaba Reddy versus Federal Bank