The Tribunal disposed of an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking to quash a sale notice as infructuous because the scheduled sale fixed pursuant to the notice did not take place.
Application disposed of as infructuous; contentions 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 10th November, 2022
PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.555/2022
Matur pannur, gummidipoondi Taluk Chennai 601 202. Represented by its Director Mr. Richard Paul
… Applicants.
Vs.
The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch No.9, Elcanso Complex Casa Major Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008. …Respondent. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.V. Rajeswari. Counsel for respondent : M/s Radhakrishnamurthy. ……..
O R D E R
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after called SARFAESI Act or the
2
‘Act’, as the case be) to quash the Sale notice dt. 26.09.2022 fixing the sale on 20.10.2022.
( Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 10th day of November, 2022 )
(T.RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Section 17(1) application under the SARFAESI Act survives given the sale notice fixed for auction did not result in any sale.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Jotham Ferro Alloys P Ltd. and Mr. Mathivanan
The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India
T. RAJESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
