Dismissed

Suresh Tradersrep by Its Sole Proprietor Suresh Kumar v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT22 Jun 2023SA/182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application challenging an E-Auction Sale Notice filed by borrowers was dismissed by the tribunal. The court held that the sale notice remained valid as the borrowers failed to regularize the loan or tender payments. Previous procedural challenges remained pending, but the sale notice, duly served and published, could not be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 10.02.2023 upholding its validity; applicants to be put to cost; vacation of any interim orders.

Suresh Tradersrep by Its Sole Proprietor Suresh Kumar versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 182 of 2023 22.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 182 of 2023

¶7

1. M/s.Suresh Traders

¶8

Rep.by its Sole Proprietor Mr.Suresh Kumar No.162, Madana Gopalapuram Perambalur – 621 212

¶9

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar

¶10

S/o. Mr.Rajamanickam

¶11

No.230 D/7A, Renga Nagar Mettu Street

¶12

Perambalur – 621 212

¶13

3. Mrs.S.Anushya Sureshkumar W/o.Mr.Suresh Kumar No.230 D/7A, Renga Nagar Mettu Street Perambalur – 621 708 … Applicants

¶14

Vs.

¶15

The Authorised Officer

¶16

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd Trichy Divisional Office KVB Towers, 2^nd Floor Near Income Tax Officer, Alexandria Road Cantonment Trichy – 621 001 … Respondent

¶17

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶18

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. A.S.Neela Narayani, B.Priyanka & M.Prem Kumar Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A.Arun Babu

¶19

¶20

S.A. 182 of 2023 22.06.2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 10.02.2023 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 29.03.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,46,92,329.91p from applicants.

¶23

Heard Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent bank and the Junior Counsel for applicants.

¶24

Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submitted that no sale has taken place and therefore the impugned sale notice dated 10.02.2023 fixing the sale to 29.03.2023 has become infructuous. Ld.Counsel further submitted that applicants had only remitted the first limb of the conditional order and did not comply with the second limb. Ld.Counsel has demonstrated through their counter and typed set of documents that the account has been declared as an NPA on 24.08.2022, consequent upon which demand notice is issued on 08.09.2022, followed by possession notice dated 18.11.2022. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submits that applicants had also challenged the possession notice in yet another SA, which is pending adjudication. Since, there was no stay in the said SA, respondent bank has proceeded further and issued the impugned sale notice dated 10.02.2023 scheduling sale to 29.03.2023. Ld.Counsel has further demonstrated the service of sale notice, affixture and paper publication, both in English and vernacular language, thus complying all the requirements as warranted under law. Ld.Counsel also submitted that since borrowers are not coming forward for making any payments nor regularising their loan accounts, nothing survives in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

¶26

S.A. 182 of 2023 22.06.2023

¶27

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank, while issuing the impugned sale notice, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

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.

¶29

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me through e- drt, on this the 22^nd day of June, 2023)

¶32

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

Suresh Tradersrep by Its Sole Proprietor Suresh Kumar v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Tradersrep by Its Sole Proprietor Suresh Kumar v. Karur Vysya Bank

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

T Pugazhenthy versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Turntech Technologies

Sri Padma balaji Transport versus Canara Bank

Ms Ganesh Traders No Na Stamp Vendor Street Perambalur versus Karur Vysya Bank

Thangavel Udayar versus Canara Bank

S Sandhiya versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited