Dismissed

Sasikala R v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT14 Nov 2023SA/220/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT dismissed a SARFAESI application challenging a sale notice as infructuous, holding that the bank's suspension of recovery actions due to the loan account's upgrade from NPA to standard status eliminated the cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs; existing interim orders were vacated and pending applications closed.

Sasikala R versus City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA No. 220 of 2022

14.11.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 220 of 2022

¶8

Mrs. Sasikala.R W/o. D.Ramesh (Late) At No.9, Muthu Maniyamman Kovil Street, Chittlapakkam, Chennai – 600 064.

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

City Union Bank Limited, Rep. by its authorized officer Credit Recovery and Management Department, “Narayan” Administrative Office, No.24 B, Ghandhi Nagar. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Ms. Asha Malini Counsel for Respondent : Sh. A. Karthikeyan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the Sale Notice dated 31.03.2022 issued by respondent bank, scheduling sale to 09.05.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,02,720/-.

¶16

Today a memo is filed on behalf of respondent bank submitting therein that during the pendency of SA, applicant’s loan account got upgraded and was out of NPA status. Hence respondent bank had dropped their SARFAESI actions, in view of upgradation of loan account pursuant to the subject impugned Sale Notice. It is further

SA No. 220 of 2022

14.11.2023

submitted that respondent bank had initiated fresh action, in view of further default committed by borrower and hence the present SA has become infructuous and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶21

Copy of memo is sent to other side by post, as there is no representation on behalf of applicant.

¶22

In the result, SA stands dismissed as infructuous, since the very cause of action being SARFAESI action has been suspended by secured creditor in view of upgradation of loan account from NPA to standard. However there shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶23

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶24

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

¶25

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 14^th day of November, 2023)

¶26

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

Sasikala R v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikala R v. City Union Bank Limited

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

Punjab National Bank versus Kandaraj

Punjab National Bank versus Hotel Ayushman

Punjab National Bank versus M S Yemkay

Pkomathi versus Axis Bank

Uco Bank versus M/S. Soulificio

Mr N Sathiyamoorthy versus Indian Bank