Dismissed

Mrs Kalpana v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT25 Jul 2023SA/126/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai dismissed the SARFAESI appeal challenging the Sale Notice issued by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank. The court held the challenge had no tenable merits as the applicant could not infirmities in the procedure. However, the applicant was granted liberty to approach the bank for a negotiated settlement by 15.08.2023.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice application dismissed without costs, liberty granted for negotiated settlement with bank by 15.08.2023.

Mrs Kalpana versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 126 of 2023 25.07.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 126 of 2023

¶7

Mrs.Kalpana

¶8

W/o Vijayarangan J No.3, Saraswathi Nagar Konrajan Kuppam Melayanambakkam, Mudravoyal Chennai – 600 095 ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer Tamilnad Mercantiled Bank Aminjkarai Branch D.No.650, Poonamalle High Road Aminjkarai Chennai – 600 029 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Anil Relwani & TS Rajeevgandhi Counsel for Respondent : M/s. K.N.Chinnakrishnan (Late) & E.Kumar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 24.01.2023 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 03.03.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,33,00,421.14p from applicants.

¶15

Heard Ld.counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶16

It is the case of applicant that they intend to negotiate with respondent bank for

¶17

an amicable settlement. However, they could not do so due to paucity of funds.

¶18

¶19

S.A. 126 of 2023 25.07.2023

¶20

Ld.Counsel for applicant submits that although applicant contemplated to remit the dues payable to the respondent bank at the time of moving this SA, they could not do so and therefore an IA filed for grant of stay along with urgent petition, was duly dismissed with costs and applicant had complied the said payment of costs. Ld.Counsel further submits that applicant intends to approach respondent bank for an amicable settlement before the issuance of next sale notice, since no sale had taken place under the impugned sale notice dated 21.01.2023, owing to which the very challenge has become infructuous. It is also submitted that applicant could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and prayed for time to approach respondent bank for an negotiated settlement. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.

¶21

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent bank has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions, copies of which are duly served on the Ld.Counsel appearing for applicant. It is submitted that applicant had never approached respondent bank with any settlement proposal and that they are continuing their default in repayment even after approaching this Tribunal. Ld.Counsel has demonstrated respondent bank’s actions through their counter and typed set of documents which are found to be in accordance to law. It is also submitted that the impugned sale notice has become infructuous for want of bidders and therefore nothing survives in the present SA and prayed for appropriate orders.

¶22

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice

¶23

¶24

S.A. 126 of 2023 25.07.2023

¶25

dated 21.01.2023, there are no tenable merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

Liberty be with applicant to approach respondent bank for any negotiated settlement in terms of their submissions at the bench and in any case not later than 15.08.2023. Respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law if the default of the borrower continues beyond 15.08.2023.

¶28

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶29

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

¶30

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 25^th day of July, 2023)

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶33

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mrs Kalpana v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kalpana v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

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

City Union Bank Limited versus Rajalakshmai

Mr R Rajarajan S O Raja Chidambaram versus City Union Bank Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus Gurudev Enterprises And Another

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Mr S Saravanan

Indian Bank versus Mr N M Ranganathan And Other

Indian Overseas Bank versus MsPonneri Steel Industries