Allowed

S Vignesh v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT23 Sept 2022SA/60/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the SARFAESI application challenging a bank's E-Auction Sale Notice on grounds of procedural infirmities and inaccurate property description. The court vacated interim orders, closed pending IAs, and granted liberty to the bank to re-initiate action afresh.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application is allowed without costs; interim order is vacated; liberty granted to the bank to initiate action afresh with correct property description.

S Vignesh versus City Union Bank Limited — Specific Performance | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 60 of 2022 23.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 60 of 2022

¶7

1. Dr.S.Vignesh

¶8

S/o. S.Shanmugam No.85, Kattukkara Street Madapuram Thiruvarur District – 610 001

¶9

2. S.Shanmugam S/o.V.Sachidhanandam No.85, Kattukkara Street Madapuram Thiruvarur District – 610 001 ….Applicants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1. The Authorised Officer City Union Bank Ltd Credit Recovery and Management Department Administrative Office No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar Kumbakonam – 612 001

¶12

2. The Branch Manager City Union Bank Ltd Vijayapuram Branch Thiruvarur District – 6100 001 ….Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. Vincent & Vincent Counsel for Respondents : M/s. A.Kathikeyan & R.Devi

¶15

¶16

S.A. 60 of 2022 23.09.2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 12.01.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling E-Auction on 24.02.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,61,428/-.

¶19

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicants that the sale notice is riddled with infirmities which include non-affixture of the sale notice as well as causing paper publication. Ld. counsel further submits that the description of the property is also suffering a infirmity in as much as, there is no mention of existing building over the vacant land, which is mortgaged with the respondent bank.

¶20

It is the case of the applicants that the same has not been mentioned even in the demand notice or the subsequent possession notice issued by the respondent bank. It is submitted on behalf of applicants that the valuation report furnish by the respondent bank contains the existence of a building for which valuation has been duly provided. Applicant submits that no sale has taken place on the schedule date since applicants had approached the Tribunal and complied the interim condition. It is also submitted that as the description of the property mortgaged in favour of the bank was not described in accordance to the mortgage deed, the actions of the respondent bank shall not survive and prayed for an appropriate order.

¶21

Whereas respondent bank represented by its counsel has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld. Counsel has submitted that in the impugned sale notice, there is a description of super structure but however, in the

¶22

¶23

S.A. 60 of 2022 23.09.2022

¶24

Demand Notice and the Possession Notice there is no proper description of the property.

¶25

Ld. counsel has submitted that at page of 22 of his typed set, a photograph evidencing affixture of possession notice is filed, which evidences the existence of super structure described in the sale notice. Ld. counsel further submits that consequent upon applicant’s promise and undertaking with the respondent bank to regularize their loan account and not to cause embarrassment to them while publishing the sale notice, respondent bank has not proceeded further with the impugned sale notice and thereby neither an affixture nor paper publication was caused for the impugned sale notice, which is now being taken advantage of by the borrowers to submit that respondent Bank has not acted in accordance to law while issuing the impugned sale notice.

¶26

From the foregone submissions of both the parties, it is evident that parties were on negotiation terms, but however, since the same did not fructify, SARFAESI actions have been initiated and also withheld intermittently.

¶27

In the result, this SA is allowed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed. Liberty be with respondent bank to initiate action afresh by describing the mortgaged property as is mortgaged with respondent bank, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶28

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶29

¶30

S.A. 60 of 2022 23.09.2022

¶31

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

¶32

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23^rd day of September, 2022)

¶33

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

S Vignesh v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Vignesh v. City Union Bank Limited

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

Jayakumar versus Uco Bank

Aneesha Alias versus Indian Bank

Mrs C Nagalakshmi W O M Chandran versus City Union Bank Limited

Mrs S R Thilagavathi Prop S S Ramachandiran Agency W O Ramachandran versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Horn Bill Enterprises

Kasturi Aqua Needs versus City Union Bank Limited