Dismissed

V N Subramaniyan v. Indian Bank

DRT17 Apr 2023SA/116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Short Notice Appeal filed by the applicant challenging an e-auction sale notice for non-prosecution and default in filing compliance memos and costs despite earlier urgent petitions being rejected.

What did the court decide?

SA stands dismissed for default and non-prosecution, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

V N Subramaniyan versus Indian Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.116 of 2023 17.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 17^th day of April, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 116 of 2023

¶8

Mr. V.N.Subramaniyan, S/o.N.Veeraswathy Naidu, No.36/69, Brindavan Street, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, West Mambalam Branch, No.70/61, Arya Gowda Road, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.J.J.R.Edwin.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 10.02.2023 issued by respondent bank scheduling e-auction sale to 14.03.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,10,628/-.

¶15

This SA was taken up on 03.03.2023. As applicant did not choose to file any memo to show their bonafides for remitting amounts to the credit of their loan account, despite filing urgent petition and stay petition, SIAs 298/23 and 299/23 filed for urgent petition and stay petition were dismissed with costs of Rs.2500/- each payable to

¶16

¶17

S.A.116 of 2023 17.04.2023

¶18

‘Library Fund’ of DRT and DRAT Bar Association by applicant and notice to respondent bank is ordered returnable by today.

¶19

However, there is no representation on behalf of applicant even during second round of call work. Neither AOS nor memo reporting compliance of costs filed on behalf of applicant. Applicant is called absent.

¶20

Consequently, SA stands dismissed for default and non-prosecution, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶21

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶22

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

¶23

guidelines.

¶24

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 17^th day of April, 2023)

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

V N Subramaniyan v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V N Subramaniyan v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Robert Donison versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

K kovalane versus Indian Overseas Bank

K Palani versus Indian Overseas Bank

Life Insurance Corporation Of India versus M s Phoenix Arc Private Limited

Sri Venkatachalapathy Modern Rice Mills versus Idbi Bank Ltd.

T S Dinadayalan versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited