Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Sale Notice but granted extension time to settle the loan account. The court found no infirmities in the bank's procedure.
SA dismissed without costs; liberty granted to settle loan account by 31.01.2023.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.A. No.265/2022 1
09.12.2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 09th day of December, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No.265 of 2022
Mr.K.Arul S/o.Mr.Kasinathan No.4/199, Thirumakottai Road, Asesham, Mannargudi – 614 001. ….Applicant
Vs.
The Authorised Officer, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Asesham Branch, No.5/152, Ground Floor, Jothi Nagar, Thirumakottai Main Road, Asesham – 614 016 ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.K.M.Suresh & D.Adhitya. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.K.N.Chinnakrishnan & E.Kumar.
ORDER
respondent bank scheduling sale to 03.06.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.66,88,374/-.
S.A. No.265/2022 2
09.12.2022
immovable property as security for due repayment of loan availed. Though applicant was regular in repayment of installments, due to business loss, he could not continue to pay the dues regularly thus, resulting in default of repayment of instalments and initiation of recovery measures by respondent. It is the case of applicant that earlier sale notice dated 30.09.2021 issued by respondent bank was challenged by applicant before this Tribunal and the same was disposed on 29.01.2021 granting time upto 15.03.2021 for parties to enter into a negotiated settlement. Subsequent to the said order, applicant approached respondent bank with settlement proposal offering to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs before 15.03.2021 and settle the loan account before 30.04.2021. However, respondent bank without considering the said offer had proceeded further and issued the subject impugned sale notice.
S.A. No.265/2022 3
09.12.2022
respondent bank. Thus submitting, Ld. counsel for respondent bank prayed for passing necessary orders.
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 09th day of December, 2022)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sale Notice issued by the respondent bank contained any infirmities requiring quashing.
Whether the applicant should be granted time to settle the loan account before the auction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. K. Arul
The Authorised Officer, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited
Ganapathi K.R.K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
