Dismissed

P R Engineers and Contractors v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT13 Dec 2022SA/348/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT III, Chennai dismissed a SARFAESI application challenging an auction notice filed by ICICI Bank. Having recorded that the parties had reached an amicable out-of-court settlement with a default clause allowing the bank to proceed in case of non-payment, the Tribunal permitted parties to exercise rights beyond the scheduled date and dismissed the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI application dismissed without costs; interim stay vacated.

P R Engineers and Contractors versus Icici Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 348 of 2022 13.12.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 348 of 2022

¶7

PR Engineers and Contractors Represented by Managing Partner Vepamanu Yuvaraj No.75, Golden George Nagar, 1^st Floor, Ettiappan Street, Nerkundram,

¶8

Chennai – 600 107. …Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Limited, (BLG DSMG) No.24, Arihanth Insight 2^nd Cross Street, Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.M.Prem Kumar, K.Venkateshwaran, V.P.Parivallal, G.Sanjeevi & V.Sathish Kumar Counsel for Respondent : M/s.S.Suresh & M.K.Malini Dhurga.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 06.06.2022 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,71,81,449/-.

¶15

¶16

S.A. 348 of 2022 13.12.2022

¶17

Heard the Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties. It is submitted that pursuant to mutual negotiations between the parties, applicants had arrived at an amicable settlement with the respondent bank and arrived at an OTS for discharging their debt in given time frame. Ld.Counsel for applicant further submits that pursuant to the said settlement, applicants are intending to continue their repayments by or before June 2023 in terms of the compromise which is already filed before this Tribunal. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank conceded to the said settlement confirmation by respondent bank.

¶18

Notwithstanding the contentions raised by both the parties in the present SA as parties have rescinded to a negotiated settlement parties are permitted to do so. However, liberty be with both the parties to agitate their respective rights beyond June 2023 in any eventual contingency. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank has submitted that the terms of compromise includes a default clause which entitles respondent bank to proceed further, on applicants committing a default of non payment by the scheduled date. Parties were accordingly put at liberty to exercise their rights in accordance to the said compromise.

¶19

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶20

With the above directions, SA stands disposed.

¶21

¶22

S.A. 348 of 2022 13.12.2022

¶23

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

¶24

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13^th day of December, 2022)

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

P R Engineers and Contractors v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P R Engineers and Contractors v. Icici Bank Limited

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

Arul versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Moises Lawrence versus Indian Overseas Bank

N Dillibabu versus Indian Bank

Gopinath B J and others versus Dcb Bank Limited

Mrs v Radhika D o Seshagiri Rao versus Dcb Bank Limited

A Dhamayanthi versus State Bank of India