Dismissed

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT6 Sept 2022SA/258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal dismissed an SARFAESI application challenging a sale notice. The applicants claimed readymess for a One Time Settlement (OTS), but the Tribunal found no infirmities in the bank's procedure and held the sale notice had become infructuous due to the existing stay. The application was dismissed, though applicants retained liberty to approach the bank for settlement. Liberty given.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice remains; Liberty granted to approach respondent bank for settlement by 10.10.2022; Present SA stands disposed.

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 258 of 2022 06.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 06^th day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 258 of 2022

¶7

1. M/s. AMR Pharma India Pvt. Ltd

¶8

Rep. by its Director Mr. G. Ashok Y -34, Bhagya Lekha Apartments Door No. 1A, First Floor, 5^th Avenue Road Anna Nagar West Chennai – 600 040.

¶9

2. Mr. G. Ashok

¶10

No.3, Kalaivanar Street Rajajipuram Thiruvallur District – 602 001

¶11

3. M/s. IRIS Art Galleria Pvt. Ltd

¶12

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. G. Ashok W – 18 (Old No. W -188), North Main Road Anna Nagar West Extension Chennai – 600 101 ….Applicants Vs.

¶13

The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank Maraimalai Nagar Branch 34, Nandanar Street Maraimalai Nagar – 603 209 ….Respondent

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. Srinath Sridevan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. P.H. Vinoth Pandian

¶16

¶17

S.A. 258 of 2022 06.09.2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 16.05.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 02.06.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,20,97,528/-.

¶20

Today applicant had filed rejoinder to respondent’s memo dated 02.09.2022. Copy served on the other side. Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicants that they had entered into an one time settlement with respondent bank as against the outstanding dues payable to the respondent bank. It is also the case of applicants that owing to their inability to meet the repayment schedule as was undertaken at the time of entering into OTS, applicants could not discharge the same and therefore the OTS has lapsed. Notwithstanding the same, applicants submit that it is their express intention and desire to invoke the OTS proposal and infact had also extended their OTS proposal once again with a promise to discharge the outstanding amount together with any rate of interest as can be suggested by the respondent bank and infact had calculated accumulated interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the outstanding amount and would wish to negotiate with respondent bank for settlement as they are ready with the funds as of today and can repay the same on hearing the concurrence from the respondent bank.

¶21

Whereas Ld. counsel appearing for respondent bank is present along with the officials of the respondent bank, who submitted that the representations of applicant cannot be believed since the same representation is being made from the last more

¶22

¶23

S.A. 258 of 2022 06.09.2022

¶24

than two years and nothing materialized except for payment of the interim condition of Rs.1.25 crores imposed at the time of seeking stay of the impugned sale notice.

¶25

Ld. counsel re-iterates that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice and that the same has become infructuous owing to the operation of stay granted by this Tribunal on compliance of the condition. Ld. counsel further submits that applicants had never made any further payment nor had approached respondent bank for any settlement, but are only making representations time and again suggesting that they are ready and willing to settle the account. Ld. counsel for respondent bank has further submitted that the counter and typed set of documents filed establish the procedure as warranted under law and prayed for appropriate orders since there are no infirmities and the very sale notice has become infructuous.

¶26

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the sale notice impugned in this SA and even otherwise as the very sale notice has become infructuous, present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶28

Liberty be with applicants to approach respondent bank for an amicable settlement in accordance to the rules of the bank and in any case by or before

¶29

¶30

S.A. 258 of 2022 06.09.2022

¶31

10.10.2022, failing which respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in

¶32

accordance to law.

¶33

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶34

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

¶35

guidelines.

¶36

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 06^th day of September, 2022)

¶37

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

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

Ms Om Sree Mathaji Engineers versus Union Bank of India

Muniyammal versus Axis Bank

P Selvi versus Bank of Baroda

Veerendra Anand Kmar versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Mr R Kumar versus Canara Bank

M S M P Traders versus Indian Overseas Bank