Allowed

Mrs Kokila Govindasamy Wife of Govindasamy v. Union Bank of India

DRT8 Jun 2023SA/166/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the SARFAESI application to set aside the e-auction sale notice dated 24.02.2023, which became infructuous due to the absence of bidders, without costs and while retaining liberty for the bank to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 24.02.2023 set aside; sale expenses not to be debited to borrower; liberty to proceed further granted.

Mrs Kokila Govindasamy Wife of Govindasamy versus Union Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.166 of 2023 08.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 08^th day of June, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 166 of 2023

¶7

Mrs.Kokila Govindasamy, W/o.Govindasamy, Maravadi, 3/10L 5^th Street, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu – 636 705.

¶8

Mr.G.Balasubramani, S/o.Govindasamy, No.3/10L Bharathipuram, Collectorate Lakkiampatti, Dharmapuri – 636 705. ….Applicants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Union Bank of India, Rep. by it’s the Authorised Officer, Dharmapuri Branch, Opp: Collector Office, Near Bus Stand, Dharmapuri – 636 705. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Saibaba. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.Ananda Gomathy.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 24.02.2023 issued

¶15

by respondent bank scheduling e-auction sale to 28.03.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,69,228.14p

¶16

¶17

S.A.166 of 2023 08.06.2023

¶18

Both sides are present. Representative counsel for respondent bank requested for a pass over for filing memo as respondent bank is unable to trace proof of affixture. Case is passed over at request.

¶19

Memo vide SR No.6956/23 is filed on behalf of respondent bank submitting therein that sale notice impugned in this SA has become infructuous, as no sale has taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders. It is further submitted that even though respondent bank had followed all the procedures as contemplated under the Act, respondent bank is unable to trace the photographs evidencing affixture of sale notice on the secured asset. Thus submitting, Ld. counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶20

Ld. counsel for respondent bank has made an endorsement in the memo that copy of memo is served by watsapp to other side.

¶21

Perused records. Memo filed on behalf of respondent bank is taken on file.

¶22

In the result, SA is allowed, however without costs. Sale Notice dated 24.02.2023 is hereby set aside. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the subject impugned sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account. However, liberty be with respondent bank to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶23

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶24

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶25

¶26

S.A.166 of 2023 08.06.2023

¶27

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

¶28

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 08^th day of June, 2023)

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶31

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mrs Kokila Govindasamy Wife of Govindasamy v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kokila Govindasamy Wife of Govindasamy v. Union Bank of India

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

Central Bank of India versus Sanjeev

Mrs Nirmala Kishor Agrawal Prop Ms Shakambari Collection versus Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ram Gopal

Shaktisingh Rajkumar Yadav versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Mhammed Rafi

Uco Bank versus Vinay and Co.