Dismissed

Lumar Lites and Switches Rep by its Prop Mrs K Charanya v. Canara Bank

DRT11 Oct 2022SA/344/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a SARFAESI Application challenging a possession notice, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the plea for default and non-prosecution by the applicant, who failed to comply with prior interim conditions and file representation.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application was dismissed for default and non-prosecution; no costs were awarded; interim stay vacated.

Lumar Lites and Switches Rep by its Prop Mrs K Charanya versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 344 of 2022 11.10.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 344 of 2022

¶7

M/s. Lumar Lites and Switches, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs. K.Charanya, G-403 The Central Park South Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119. ….Applicant Vs.

¶8

Canara Bank Represented by Authorized Officer, No.226, R.K.Mutt Road, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai – 600 028. ….Respondent

¶9

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Vairava Subramanian Counsel for Respondent : Sh. M. Muthukumaran

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 21.05.2022 issued by

¶13

respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,17,20,110.98p.

¶14

No representation on behalf of applicant. Neither compliance of interim condition reported nor AOS of notice to respondent bank filed. However, Sh. M. Muthukumaran, Advocate representing respondent bank is present and prays time for filing vakalat, counter and typed set of documents.

¶15

¶16

S.A. 344 of 2022 11.10.2022

¶17

On perusal of records, it is observed that although applicant through their counsel had filed a memo dated 04.07.2022 undertaking to pay 10% of the outstanding amount, and this Tribunal vide order dated 06.08.2022 directed applicant to remit 10% in two weeks and another 10% in two weeks thereafter and granted interim stay subject to compliance of above conditions, neither compliance of conditional order has been reported, nor AOS of notice to respondent bank filed by applicant. There is no representation also on behalf of applicant even during second round of call work today.

¶18

Consequently, SA stands dismissed for default and non-prosecution, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶19

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶20

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

¶21

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 11^th day of October, 2022)

¶22

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶23

PRESIDING OFFICER

Lumar Lites and Switches Rep by its Prop Mrs K Charanya v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lumar Lites and Switches Rep by its Prop Mrs K Charanya 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

Priya K versus Canara Bank

Chenkem versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

J Illiyas versus Aditya Birla housing finance Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Alumalai Ayyan Traders and Another

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Bannari Amman Enterprises and Another

Jaipaul versus Canara Bank