Dismissed

Ms Vision Next India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRT17 Mar 2023SA/5/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the limitation period for setting aside a secured asset sale. The court held that selling the secured asset falls under Section 13(4)(a), making it amendable under Section 17, and the application filed within 45 days was valid.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking rejection of the secure asset sale application based on limitation is dismissed.

Ms Vision Next India Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 17^th day of March, 2023

¶3

PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

IA No.265/2023 IN

¶6

SA No.5/2023

¶7

The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Red Cross Building, II Floor, No.32, Red Cross Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶8

… Applicant/Respondent.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.Vision Next India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Mr.A.R.Ravi, No.25/11, 1^st Floor, Ramanujam Street, Chennai – 600 017.

¶11

Mr.A.R.Ravi, S/o.A.K.Ramamoorthy.

¶12

Mrs.R.Devasena, W/o.Mr.A.R.Ravi.

¶13

Both at Old No.25, New Door No.123, Mahadevan Street, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 017. … Respondents/Applicants. Counsel for Applicant/Respondent : M/s.M.L.Ganesh. Counsel for Respondents/Applicants : Mr.N.S.Thanu Madhan.

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

IA 265/2023 is an application filed by petitioner/respondent with a prayer to reject the SA on the ground of limitation. This SA is filed by the respondents/applicants to set aside the sale dt.11.11.2022 pursuant to the sale notice dt.27.09.2022.

¶17

The petitioner/respondent in their affidavit filed in support of application had contended as follows:

¶18

The sale conducted on 11.11.2022 and the sale proceeds had credited on 02.12.2022 as Rs.50,90,059/- and balance of Rs.6,83,152.54 is available for withdrawal. It is the case of the petitioner/respondent that the applicants to the SA had received the possession notice and the physical possession of the property was taken. The impugned sale notice was also issued on 27.09.2022 which was received by the respondents/applicants on 01.10.2022. Hence, according to the petitioner/respondent, the cause of action had to be reckoned from 45 days from the date of knowledge or receipt of sale notice and cannot reckon on receipt of sale price by the authroised officer. It is further submitted that right of the respondents/applicants to redeem the property is lost by conduct of auction and 3^rd party interest is created. In the above premises the petitioner/respondent seeks to dismiss the SA on the ground of limitation.

¶19

The respondents/applicants had not filed their counter to IA.

¶20

Heard the counsel for petitioner/respondent. The contention of the petitioner/respondent is that having received the sale notice and allowed the sale to go through, the respondents/applicants cannot maintain the application based on the conclusion of sale and payment of sale price, is having some force as to the merits of the case as the borrower who had consented the sale to go through by his in action cannot turn back and take a contention as to the validity of the sale notice leading to the sale. However, section 17 of SARFAESI Act reads as follows:

¶21

“17. Application against measures to recover secured debts.- (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter [may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken …”

¶22

Hence all the measures referred to in sub-section 4 of Section 13 are amenable

¶23

to the jurisdiction u/s.17 of the Act. Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act reads as follows:

¶24

“13. Enforcement of security interest .- xxxx

¶25

(4)xxxxx

¶26

(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; (b)xxxxxx”

¶27

Hence, section 13(4)(a) takes in, the sale of the schedule property and by which

¶28

it is crystal clear that sale of the schedule property is also the measures u/s.13(4) of the Act which amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal u/s.17.

¶29

The acquaintance of the applicant in not challenging the sale notice can only

¶30

be a ground while considering the merits of the SA and in view of the specific empowerment u/s.17 read with section 13(4)(a), this Tribunal is of the view that the present application with a prayer to set aside the sale dt.11.11.2022 and filed on 26.12.2022 is filed on 45^th day and is well within the period of limitation. Hence, IA 265/2023 is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

5. In the result, IA 265/2023 in SA 5/2023 stands dismissed.

¶32

( Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 17^th day of March, 2023 )

¶33

Sd./-

¶34

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

Ms Vision Next India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vision Next India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s.Chakra Realities Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Edu Infotech

Bank of India versus Mrs. Vineeta Gupta

K Subramanian versus Bank of Baroda

D Senthil versus Indian Overseas Bank

N Krishnappa versus Karvy Financial Services Limited