Allowed

Nagavalli v. Canara Bank

DRT17 Aug 2022SA/268/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a Sale Notice issued by the Respondent Bank for a Jewel Loan default. The Bank admitted procedural infirmities in the notice. The Tribunal allowed the application, barred debit of sale expenses, directed return of pledged jewels with interest, and vacated interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice not to be implemented; sale expenses not to be debited; pledged jewels to be returned with interest; interim orders vacated; pending IAs closed.

Nagavalli versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. No.268 of 2022 17.08.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 268 of 2022

¶7

1. Nagavalli

¶8

W/o. Late Karunakaran

¶9

23, Bajanai Koil Street Redhills, Chennai – 600 052

¶10

2. Hemanth

¶11

S/o. Late Karunakaran 23, Bajanai Koil Street Redhills, Chennai – 600 052

¶12

3. Minor Mr.Sivaram

¶13

S/o. Late Karunakaran 23, Bajanai Koil Street Redhills, Chennai – 600 052

¶14

4. Sampoornam

¶15

M/o. Late Karunakaran 23, Bajanai Koil Street Redhills, Chennai – 600 052 ….Applicants Vs. Canara Bank Padianallur (Redhills) No.174, G.N.T.Road Padianallur, Redhills – 600 052 ….Respondent

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicants : M/s.C.P.Sivamohan Counsel for Respondent : M/s.AGD.Balakumar

¶18

¶19

S.A. No.268 of 2022 17.08.2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 04.05.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 06.06.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,36,716/-.

¶22

Sh. Abishek Premchand, Branch Manager of the respondent bank is also present and submitted that applicants had discharged the entire amount due under Jewel Loan as of 01.02.2021 and that the bank ought to have returned the Jewels but could not do so since applicants were under negotiation terms and had suggested that they shall approach the bank with a purchaser of the gold ornaments so that the said amount could be credited to the applicant’s loan account due to the respondent bank.

¶23

Whereas Ld. counsel appearing for applicants suggests that the said submission

¶24

might not be true as applicants were capable of discharging their debt, which was accordingly done and if the jewels were returned to the applicants at that point of time, it would be for them to decide the mode of discharge of their dues to the respondent bank.

¶25

Ld. counsel appearing for respondent bank in this matter has filed a memo submitting therein that the respondent bank did not follow the procedure as warranted under law while issuing the impugned sale notice and admits to the infirmities therein. Ld. counsel therefore seeks permission of this Tribunal to withdraw the same while retaining their right to initiate SARFAESI action afresh if the default of the borrower continues.

¶26

¶27

S.A. No.268 of 2022 17.08.2022

¶28

Memo is served on the other side and filed into the Tribunal, which is since taken on record. Both parties concede that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date.

¶29

In the result, this SA is allowed. Respondent bank is directed not to debit sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account. Respondent bank is also directed to return the jewels kept with them under pledge forthwith together with applicable interest over the value of the jewels till the date of final payment into the borrower’s account. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶30

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶31

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

¶32

guidelines.

¶33

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

¶34

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

Nagavalli v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagavalli v. Canara 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

New Care Printers Solutions versus Canara Bank

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. versus Ms K Divya

P Vinoth versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

K Linkesh versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Thaheera Begum versus Repco Home Finance Limited

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. versus Sri Muthumariamman Container