Dismissed

M s Vetrivel Auto Electrical Components v. Canara Bank

DRT15 Sept 2022SA/352/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged an E-Auction Sale Notice issued by the respondent bank for recovery of dues, citing pandemic-induced defaults and disputed amounts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the bank's procedure. The application was dismissed, but the applicant was granted liberty to enter into restructuring or settlement by August 30, 2022.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Liberty granted to applicant to enter into restructuring or settlement process by 30.10.2022.

M s Vetrivel Auto Electrical Components versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 352 of 2022 15.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 352 of 2022

¶7

M/s. Vetrivel Auto Electrical Components

¶8

Rep. by its Sole Proprietor Mr.T.N.Sathyanarayana No.38, Electrical Industrial Estate Kakkalur Thiruvallur – 602 003 ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer

¶11

M/s. Canara Bank Aminijikarai Branch No.6, Govindan Street Ayyavoo Colony, Aminijikarai Chennai – 600 029 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. T.P.Prabhakaran, I.Jeyaraj, N.Ilakkiya, S.Sri Ranjini & S.Manisha Counsel for Respondent : M/s. M.Gopi

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 27.07.2022 issued

¶16

by respondent bank scheduling sale to 29.08.2022 for recovery of a sum of

¶17

Rs.1,68,00,621/- due as on 28.04.2022.

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of

¶19

applicants that they fell in arrears to the respondent bank owing to Pandemic Covid-19,

¶20

¶21

S.A. 352 of 2022 15.09.2022

¶22

as their MSME manufacturing unit could not continue during the national lockdown. It is the case of applicants that they are now in revival path and would like to negotiate with respondent bank for restructuring their loans and regularise the same. Ld. Counsel submits that the claims made by respondent bank are not reflecting the correct amounts due from the borrowers as even according to their statements, the amounts due are different than the amounts claimed. Ld. Counsel further concedes that despite the best efforts of the borrowers, they are still not able to muster enough funds for discharging their loan account. Ld. Counsel further submits that applicants could not establish any bonafides by discharging their debt, even after approaching the Tribunal.

¶23

Whereas Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank has submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and that the actions of the respondent bank are duly established in their typed set of documents filed along with counter. Copies of the same are furnished to Ld. Counsel for applicant.

¶24

It is submitted on behalf of respondent bank that sufficient lenience has been extended to applicant unit but however since no payments are forthcoming, despite reviving all the units, the present sale notice came to be issued, which has also become infructuous for want of bidders. Ld. Counsel submits that borrowers did not cause any repayment from the last several months despite efforts of the respondent bank to realise its dues.

¶25

¶26

S.A. 352 of 2022 15.09.2022

¶27

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

¶28

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed. However, liberty be with applicants to enter into restructuring of their loan or settlement process, by or before 15.10.2022, failing which respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶29

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 15^th day of September, 2022)

¶32

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

M s Vetrivel Auto Electrical Components v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M s Vetrivel Auto Electrical Components 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

Acharya Arts Proprietor K M Johnson versus Canara Bank

V Kumar versus Canara Bank

K S Consturction versus City Union Bank Limited

Lakshminarayanan versus Indusind Bank Limited

R Ravindran versus Bank of Baroda

K Kaliyaperumal versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited