Dismissed

M S M P Traders v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT9 Sept 2022SA/343/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an S.A. challenging a SARFAESI sale notice. The Tribunal found the bank's procedure legal. The sale was deemed infructuous as no bidders appeared, but the application was dismissed as the subsequent sale notice was unchallenged and defaults continued.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application dismissed without costs; interim order vacated; pending IAs closed.

M S M P Traders versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 343 of 2022 09.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 09^th day of September, 2022

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 343 of 2022

¶8

1. M/s.M.P.Traders

¶9

Prop: Mr.P.Pajany No.1, Dr.Varadarajanar Nagar Manaveli, Ariyankuppam Puducherry – 605 007

¶10

2. Mr.P.Pajany

¶11

S/o. Mr.Perumal No.1, Dr.Varadarajanar Nagar Manaveli, Ariyankuppam

¶12

Puducherry – 605 007 ….Applicants

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The Authorised Officer / Chief Manager Indian Overseas Bank Lawspet Branch No.23, Airport Road, Lawspet Puducherry – 605 008 ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. P.Rajesh & Selvirajesh Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Ananda Gomathy & R.Roshan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 01.07.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 10.08.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,85,234.14p

¶18

¶19

S.A. 343 of 2022 09.09.2022

¶20

Respondent bank had entered appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing the actions taken by them under the Act.

¶21

It is the case of applicant that consequent upon their default with respondent bank, present SARFAESI actions are initiated and the present SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 01.07.2022 fixing the sale to 10.08.2022. Ld. Counsel submits that applicants could only muster funds for paying the first condition of the interim order and had defaulted in paying the second condition as imposed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, pursuant to the undertaking memo filed on behalf of the applicants at the time of moving the SA. Ld. Counsel had only prayed for further extension of time for causing payment but could not give any plausible reason for the same. Hence, not considered.

¶22

Whereas the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank is ready with counter and typed set of documents and demonstrated the actions of the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice evidencing their actions, which are found to be in accordance to law. Respondent bank is permitted to file the same into the Tribunal after furnishing copies to the other side.

¶23

Counter and typed set of documents has been filed on behalf of respondent bank before the Registry vide SR No.9575/2022.

¶24

Both parties concede that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date in view of the compliance of first condition of this Tribunal and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. It is also submitted by both the Counsels that there was yet another sale notice that was issued, which also has become infructuous. Ld.

¶25

¶26

S.A. 343 of 2022 09.09.2022

¶27

Counsel for respondent bank has also demonstrated that the valuation report with regard to the mortgaged property was also obtained before issuance of the sale notice which was more than the valuation report furnished by the applicants here in, but still there were no bidders and the impugned sale notice as well as the fresh sale notice have both become infructuous.

¶28

It is submitted that the subsequent sale notice is not challenged by the applicants herein nor any further payment made pursuant to the SARFESI actions of the respondent, thus continuing their default.

¶29

In the circumstances as applicants could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if

¶31

any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶32

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 09^th day of September, 2022)

¶35

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

M S M P Traders v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S M P Traders 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr R Kumar versus Canara Bank

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

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Mr P Devanand versus State Bank of India

P C Bhaskar versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

V Kumar versus Canara Bank