Allowed

Sri Bhavani Traders v. Canara Bank

DRT9 Jun 2023SA/197/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging a sale notice dated 04.03.2023 issued by Canara Bank lacking 30 days notice due to prior procedural infirmity. DT III Chennai allowed the application, quashed the sale notice. Directed bank not to debit expenses. Granted liberty to proceed further if default continues.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice dated 04.03.2023 set aside; bank directed not to debit sale notice expenses; interim order vacated; liberty granted to proceed further.

Sri Bhavani Traders versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.197 of 2023 09.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 197 of 2023

¶8

M/s.Sri Bhavani Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mrs.Bhavani, No.941, TVS Colony, 54^th Street, Anna Nagar West Extn, Chennai – 600 101.

¶9

Mrs.Bhavani, No.941, TVS Colony, 54^th Street, Anna Nagar West Extn, Chennai – 600 101. ….Applicants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, Chennai Mount Road Branch, No.787, Royala Towers, Anna Salai, Chennai Tamil Nadu – 600 002. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.M.Venkadesh Kumar. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.Akshai Mani.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the sale, if any held on 22.03.2023 pursuant to Sale Notice dated 04.03.2023 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,93,08,000/-.

¶16

Today a memo is filed on behalf of respondent bank submitting therein that the

¶17

earlier sale notice dated 24.06.2022 issued by respondent bank was challenged by

¶18

¶19

S.A.197 of 2023 09.06.2023

¶20

applicant in SA No.340 of 2022, which came to be allowed vide order dated 13.02.2023 and sale notice dated 24.06.2022 was set aside, as respondent bank could not prove service of Possession Notice and photographs evidencing affixture of sale notice dated 24.06.2022 could not be produced. However, liberty was granted to respondent bank to proceed further in accordance to law.

¶21

Thereafter, as the default of the borrower continued, respondent bank had issued another sale notice dated 04.03.2023 scheduling sale to 22.03.2023, which sale is challenged by applicant in this SA. It is submitted that respondent bank ought to have issued 30 days notice to borrower as the earlier notice was set aside because of the infirmities in the procedure followed by respondent bank, whereas respondent bank had mistakenly considered the subject impugned sale notice as second sale notice and had given only 18 days notice. Hence in view of the infirmity in issuance of sale notice, respondent bank may be permitted to withdraw the same. Ld. counsel for respondent undertakes to serve copy of memo to other side. Permitted.

¶22

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for respondent. Memo filed on behalf of respondent bank is taken on file.

¶23

In the result, this SA is allowed, however without costs. Sale Notice dated 04.03.2023 is hereby set aside. Respondent is directed not to debit the sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed. Liberty be with respondent to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶24

¶25

S.A.197 of 2023 09.06.2023

¶26

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶27

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

¶28

guidelines.

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 09^th day of June, 2023)

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri Bhavani Traders v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bhavani Traders v. Canara 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

Ms Starship L and L Project Logistics versus Canara Bank

BVedhavarshini Minor versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

R S Suresh Kumar versus Indian Overseas Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Caris Pure Processing Company Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs Vijay Vani Panati versus The Authourised Officer Piramal Capital Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Total Supply Chain And Food Solution Pvt. Ltd. And Four Others