Allowed

Acharya Arts Proprietor K M Johnson v. Canara Bank

DRT14 Sept 2022SA/27/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal disposed of the SARFAESI application allowing it without costs. The bank withdrew the demand notice after the applicant made part payments but claimed to initiate fresh action if default continues. Costs and SARFAESI expenses were directed not to be debited.

What did the court decide?

SA allowed without costs; SARFAESI expenses not to be debited; liberty to initiate fresh action if default continues.

Acharya Arts Proprietor K M Johnson versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 27 of 2022 14.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 27 of 2022

¶7

M/s. Acharya Arts

¶8

Proprietor K.M.Johnson S/o.Mr.K.M.Mathew No.13, First Main Road, Saravamangala Nagar Chitlapakkam Chennai – 600 064 ….Applicant Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer

¶10

Canara Bank Radha Nagar Chromepet Branch 50, Radha Nagar Main Road Radha Nagar, Chromepet Chennai – 600 044 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S.Saravanan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. G.Suresh Kumar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 27.12.2021 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 29.01.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.61,91,233.14p from applicant.

¶15

Today a memo is filed on behalf of respondent bank submitting therein that due

¶16

to inadvertence, there was an error crept in mentioning of claim amount in the possession notice issued by respondent bank, which is neither willful nor wanton. It is

¶17

¶18

S.A. 27 of 2022 14.09.2022

¶19

further submitted that the present sale notice impugned in this SA has become infructuous as no sale had taken place on the scheduled date and that the applicant had made part payments and a sum of Rs.24,26,610/- is the outstanding due as on 12.09.2022. It is submitted that in view of the part payments made by applicant, respondent bank is withdrawing the demand notice with liberty to initiate fresh measures for the present outstanding. Copy of memo is served to Ld. counsel appearing for applicant.

¶20

Heard. Memo filed on behalf of respondent is taken on record. In the result, this SA is allowed, however without costs. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the SARFAESI expenses to the borrower’s loan account. However, liberty be with respondent bank to initiate action afresh, if the default of the borrower continues. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶21

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶22

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

¶23

guidelines.

¶24

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 14^th day of September, 2022)

¶25

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

Acharya Arts Proprietor K M Johnson v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Acharya Arts Proprietor K M Johnson v. Canara Bank

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

V Kumar versus Canara Bank

K S Consturction versus City Union Bank Limited

M/s.Chellammal Educational and Charitable Trust represented by its Managing Trustee Mr.v.Govindasamy versus City Union Bank Limited

Lakshminarayanan versus Indusind Bank Limited

M s Vetrivel Auto Electrical Components versus Canara Bank

R Ravindran versus Bank of Baroda