This applicant filed under S. 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act to quash an auction sale notice. The respondent counsel stated no sale occurred. The IRIT disposed of the application as infructuous as nothing survives, leaving contentions open.
SA disposed of as infructuous; all contentions of the applicant left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 25th day of July, 2022
PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.366/2022
Anto Stalin.L, S/o.Late K.Lawrence, No.180, Luz Church Road, F-37, TNHB Flat, Chennai – 600 004. … Applicant.
Vs.
The Authorised Officer, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company, Dare House, No.2, N.S.C.Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. … Respondent. Counsel for Applicants : M/s.V.Anilkumar. Counsel for Respondent : ……. …..
FINAL ORDER
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after called SARFAESI Act or the ‘Act’, as the case be) to quash the auction cum sale notice dt.04.07.2022 fixing the e-auction sale on 23.07.2022.
submits that no sale took place pursuant to the impugned sale notice.
2
( Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 25th day of July, 2022 )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sale notice application survives when the auction did not take place.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anto Stalin.L
The Authorised Officer, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company
T. RAJESH T.RAJESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
