Allowed

M S Brright Enterprises v. Indian Bank

DRT20 Feb 2023SA/15/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI application challenging a Sale Notice for non-compliance with affixture and newspaper publication requirements. The Tribunal, finding the bank failed to establish procedure and remained absent, allowed the application and set aside the Sale Notice.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 31.12.2022 set aside; direction not to debit sale notice expenses; liberty to proceed further in accordance to law.

M S Brright Enterprises versus Indian Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 15 of 2023 20.02.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 15 of 2023

¶7

M/s. Bright Enterprises, Partners: Mrs.P.Kalaivani and Mr.R.Balasubramanian. No.11/5, Babu Raja Street, Agaram, Chennai – 600 103.

¶8

Mrs.P.Kalaivani, W/o.R.Balasubramanian No.11/5, Babu Raja Street, Agaram, Chennai – 600 103.

¶9

Mr.R.Balasubramanian S/o.M.Ramchandran, No.11/5, Babu Raja Street, Agaram, Chennai – 600 103.

¶10

M/s.Bright Equipments, Proprietor: Mr.R. Balasubramanian S/o.M.Ramachandran No.11/5, Babu Raja Street, Agaram, Chennai – 600 103.

¶11

Mrs.P.Kalaivani, M/s.Bright Equipments W/o.R.Balasubramanian, No.11/5, Babu Raja Street, Agaram, Chennai – 600 103. …Applicants

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Madhavaram Branch, No.121, M.R.H. Road, Tapalpetti, Madhavaram, Chennai – 600 060. ….Respondent

¶14

¶15

S.A. 15 of 2023 20.02.2023

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.M.Bakthavatsalam.

¶18

Counsel for Respondent : M/s.R.S.Dhuriyan.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 31.12.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 19.01.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,21,25,147/-.

¶21

Compliance of conditional order not reported. Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that applicants had remitted a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to the credit of their loan account and prayed time. AOS filed on behalf of applicant. Notice to respondent bank is served on 18.01.2023 instance. However, there is no representation on behalf of respondent bank even during second round of call work. Respondent bank is called absent and set ex-parte.

¶22

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for applicant. It is the case of applicant that respondent bank did not cause affixture of sale notice and also failed to publish the subject impugned sale notice in two newspapers as warranted under law.

¶23

Respondent bank, despite being on caveat and having received notice on 18.01.2023, did not choose to appear for hearing today and file their counter and typed set of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act while issuing the subject impugned sale notice.

¶24

¶25

S.A. 15 of 2023 20.02.2023

¶26

In the result, this SA is allowed, however without costs. Consequently, sale notice dated 31.12.2202 issued by respondent bank is set aside. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account for not establishing their procedure, despite acknowledging notices from this Tribunal and being on caveat. Liberty be with respondent bank to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

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

¶29

guidelines.

¶30

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20^th day of February, 2023)

¶31

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

M S Brright Enterprises v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Brright Enterprises v. Indian Bank

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

Natarajan versus Indian Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Mrs Suba Ravikumar versus Axis Bank

Mr Shailendra Kumar Sharma versus Om Kara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Mr T N Satyanarayana S o Thillai Natarajan M S Satya Forgings and Agencies versus Canara Bank

Cdp Sign Solution Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Jancyrani versus Union Bank of India