Allowed

Kanchana S v. Union Bank of India

DRT17 Oct 2022SA/240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenged a Sale Notice issued by the respondent bank. The respondent conceded to infirmities in the notice's service and statutory timing, noting no sale took place due to lack of bidders. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing the bank not to charge expenses to the borrower.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice application allowed without cost; respondent bank directed not to debit sale notice expenses to borrower's loan account.

Kanchana S versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 240 of 2022 17.10.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 240 of 2022

¶7

Mrs.S.Kanchana W/o.Mr.Sampath No.1/51, Padma Sundar Nagar Sholavaram, Thiruvallur Tamilnadu – 600 067 ….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer M/s. Union Bank of India Gummidipoondi Branch No.315, G.N.T.Road Gummidipoondi – 601 201 ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. T.R.Sundaram & G.Sanjeevi Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S.Pathasarathy

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging the impugned Sale Notice dated 18.04.2022 issued

¶14

by respondent bank scheduling sale to 20.05.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,91,883.38p.

¶15

No representation for applicant. Heard Ld. Counsel for respondent bank.

¶16

It is the case of respondent bank that the impugned sale notice could not be

¶17

served upon the borrower and that there was one day short to the statutory limit as laid

¶18

down in the law. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submits that no sale has taken place

¶19

¶20

S.A. 240 of 2022 17.10.2022

¶21

on the scheduled date for want of bidders and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. Ld. Counsel further submits that appropriate orders may be passed with liberty to the respondent bank to initiate fresh sale notice.

¶22

In the circumstances, as respondent bank had conceded to the infirmities while issuing the impugned sale notice, the present SA is liable to be allowed. Accordingly SA stands allowed however without cost. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account.

¶23

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated. Liberty be

¶24

with respondent bank to initiate action afresh if the default of the borrower continues.

¶25

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶26

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

¶27

guidelines.

¶28

(Dictated to Stenographer(DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 17^th day of October, 2022)

¶29

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶30

PRESIDING OFFICER

Kanchana S v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchana S v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Nazar versus Karur Vysya Bank

Asg Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank

Mr a G Vengalvarayan versus Axis Bank

Mr S Murugan versus Jm Financial Products Ltd.

Ms Swathi R versus Union Bank of India

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr Mohamed Faz and another