Disposed

Niumec Engineering Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

DRT14 Sept 2023SA/171/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal directed that the auction scheduled for 15.09.2023 be not conducted as the mandatory 15 days' notice under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was not served. The Bank is allowed to hold the sale after complying with statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 Bank directed not to conduct the sale fixed for 15.09.2023 or create any third party via such sale.

14.09.2023 *Roznama-MDRT-II* *S.A. No. 171 of 2023*	Next date
Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sheregar for the Applicants. Advocate Ms. Sushmita Chauhan along with Mr. Pankaj Vijayan counsel for M/s. Intralegal for the Respondent No.1. Other Respondents absent. Heard both the parties at length on I.A. No.739 of 2023, filed by the Applicants. Counsel for the Applicants submits that notice of earlier auction was not served upon the Applicants whereas, according to the counsel for the Respondent No.1 Bank, the notice was issued and she has shown the postal receipts. The auction fixed for 15.09.2023 is a subsequent auction and
as per the Rule 9 Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, a notice of sale of not less than 15 days’ is required to be served to the borrower for any subsequent sale. But, in the opinion of this Tribunal, minimum 15 days’ notice has not been served upon the Applicants. As per the postal receipts, notice of sale was issued to the

14.09.2023
Roznama-MDRT-II
S.A. No. 171 of 2023

Next date

Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sheregar for the
Applicants.
Advocate Ms. Sushmita Chauhan along
with Mr. Pankaj Vijayan counsel for
M/s. Intralegal for the Respondent
No.1.
Other Respondents absent.
Heard both the parties at length on
I.A. No.739 of 2023, filed by the
Applicants.
Counsel for the Applicants submits
that notice of earlier auction was not
served upon the Applicants whereas,
according to the counsel for the
Respondent No.1 Bank, the notice was
issued and she has shown the postal
receipts.
The
auction
fixed
for
15.09.2023 is a subsequent auction and

as per the Rule 9 Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, a notice of
sale of not less than 15 days’ is required
to be served to the borrower for any
subsequent sale. But, in the opinion of
this Tribunal, minimum 15 days’ notice
has
not
been
served
upon
the
Applicants. As per the postal receipts,
notice of sale was issued to the

	Applicants on 30.08.2023 and report of
	the postal authority is dt.31.08.2023,
14.09.2023	also, notice of sale was to be published.
*S.A. No. 171* *of 2023*	On asking of this Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 Bank has placed on record the photocopies of publication of notice for sale fixed for tomorrow but, the Respondent No.1 Bank has failed to
	show as to when that sale notice, signed by the Authorised Officer on 29.08.2023,
	was published. It appears that this
	notice for sale was published after
	31.08.2023 as in one of possession notice in Marathi issued along with the sale
	notice of the Respondent No.1 Bank, the
	Authorised Officer of KIFS Housing
	Finance Ltd. is shown to have signed
	the same on 31.08.2023 and if that
	publication notice was signed by that
	Authorised Officer of one of the Finance
	Company whose possession notice was
	also published along with the sale
	notice of the Respondent No.1 Bank on
	31.08.2023 then, the same must have
	been published after 31.08.2023, may be
	on 01.09.2023. In absent of date of
	publication, which was supposed to be
	brought on record by the Respondent
	No.1 Bank, this Tribunal can assume

Applicants on 30.08.2023 and report of

the postal authority is dt.31.08.2023,

14.09.2023

also, notice of sale was to be published.

S.A. No. 171
of 2023

On
asking
of
this
Tribunal,
the
Respondent No.1 Bank has placed on
record the photocopies of publication of
notice for sale fixed for tomorrow but,
the Respondent No.1 Bank has failed to

show as to when that sale notice, signed
by the Authorised Officer on 29.08.2023,

was published. It appears that this

notice for sale was published after

31.08.2023 as in one of possession notice
in Marathi issued along with the sale

notice of the Respondent No.1 Bank, the

Authorised Officer of KIFS Housing

Finance Ltd. is shown to have signed

the same on 31.08.2023 and if that

publication notice was signed by that

Authorised Officer of one of the Finance

Company whose possession notice was

also published along with the sale

notice of the Respondent No.1 Bank on

31.08.2023 then, the same must have

been published after 31.08.2023, may be

on 01.09.2023. In absent of date of

publication, which was supposed to be

brought on record by the Respondent

No.1 Bank, this Tribunal can assume

14.09.2023 that this publication was got effected after 31.08.2023 and thus, minimum 15 days’ mandatory notice of sale has not been given to the Applicants. So, in these circumstances, the holding of sale
*S.A. No. 171* *of 2023* proceeding on tomorrow, i.e. 15.09.2023, would be a futile exercise. In these circumstances, the Respondent No.1 Bank is directed not to conduct the sale fixed for 15.09.2023 and not to create any third party by way of auction sale fixed for 15.09.2023. However, the Respondent No.1 Bank would be at liberty to initiate any action, including sale of the secured asset, after complying with the statutory requirement laid down in Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. I.A. No.739 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly. Now to come up on the date already fixed, i.e. 13.10.2023 for Arguments. Sd/- I/c P.O. DRT-II	13.10.2023

14.09.2023
that this publication was got effected
after 31.08.2023 and thus, minimum 15
days’ mandatory notice of sale has not
been given to the Applicants. So, in
these circumstances, the holding of sale

S.A. No. 171
of 2023
proceeding
on
tomorrow,
i.e.
15.09.2023, would be a futile exercise. In
these circumstances, the Respondent
No.1 Bank is directed not to conduct the
sale fixed for 15.09.2023 and not to
create any third party by way of auction
sale fixed for 15.09.2023. However, the
Respondent No.1 Bank would be at
liberty to initiate any action, including
sale
of
the
secured
asset,
after
complying
with
the
statutory
requirement laid down in Rule 9 of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002. I.A. No.739 of 2023 stands
disposed of accordingly.
Now to come up on the date already
fixed, i.e. 13.10.2023 for Arguments.
Sd/-
I/c P.O.
DRT-II

13.10.2023

Niumec Engineering Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niumec Engineering Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. v. Catholic Syrian 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

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Sree Durga Motor Stores

Idbi Bank versus Divyesh Niranjan Patel

Icici Bank Limited versus Samir Das

Sh. Baba Bhagwant Bhajan Singh versus Recovery Officer-Ii Debt Recovery Tribunal -I

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Sh Anil Singla

B S Scaff Folding Industries versus Uco Bank