Dismissed

N Divakar v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT20 May 2023SA/234/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SA filed by a guarantor against a 2nd sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal held that the bank followed the prescribed procedure, the notice period was sufficient, and the application lacked merit. The application was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Appeal No. 234 of 2022 is dismissed without costs.

N Divakar versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 234 of 2022 20.05.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 234 of 2022

¶7

N.Divakar

¶8

S/o. Nagamuthu No. 5/3, Manimegalai Street New Perungalathur Chennai – 600 063 ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer

¶11

Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd No.29, Kamaraj High Road Devi Kaumariamman Nagar, Mettukuppam Nerkundram Chennai – 600 107 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s V.Ramamurthy, R.Vijay Kumar, B.Ramprasad & H.Yuga Shree Counsel for respondent bank : M/s K.N.Chinnakrishnan & E.Kumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 20.04.2022 issued by

¶16

respondent bank scheduling sale to 17.05.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,15,60,590.78p

¶17

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶18

¶19

S.A. 234 of 2022 20.05.2023

¶20

It is the case of applicant that the present challenge to the sale notice issued by the respondent bank is made as respondent bank had not followed the procedure as warranted under law. It is the case of applicant that there is no 30 days period from the service of sale notice and the scheduled date of sale. It is also the case of applicant that the property which has been sold out of the three items in the schedule of the sale notice has been grossly undervalued and that the additions made thereupon by the borrowers are not considered for valuing the property. Ld.Counsel for applicant has also submitted that there was no valuation that was undertaken before the scheduled date of sale since nobody visited the schedule premises for taking out the valuation. It is for this specific reason that the additions made to the premises has not been finding place in the present valuation report filed by the respondent bank. It is also the case of applicant that it is mandatory for the respondent bank to obtain valuation report before every sale notice as laid down by the Supreme Court of India through its various judgements, but however respondent bank has not caused any such valuation before the issuance of impugned sale notice. Ld.Counsel submits that applicant has made several additions and extensions with new constructions in the said premises but however respondent bank have not considered the same since the valuation report did not find mentioning of any of it. Ld.Counsel further submits that applicant had drawn the inference that valuer did not visit the premises but had only furnished the valuation report basing on the information given by the bank. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel stated that as respondent bank did not follow the procedure as warranted under law while concluding the sale

¶21

¶22

S.A. 234 of 2022 20.05.2023

¶23

even against one item of schedule property more fully detailed in the impugned sale notice, prayed to set aside the same.

¶24

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submitted that the present sale notice is a 2^nd sale notice and therefore 15 days time is sufficient for the borrowers to redeem their property if they intended to do so. Ld.Counsel submitted that the earlier sale notice issued on 17.02.2022 has become infructuous for want of bidders and even in the impugned sale notice, only one of the items could be sold amongst two items. Ld.Counsel has submitted that respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that there is no violation of any rules or provisions as being alleged by the applicant. It is submitted that valuation is obtained in accordance to the existing structures and borrowers has not furnished additional plan approval or was there any concluded construction, but only contemplated structures which did not have any approvals or permissions. Ld.Counsel submits that respondent bank had intimated their reserve price in the sale notice itself which was fixed, after due consideration of all the factors by the secured creditor and accordingly sale of one of the items has been duly concluded. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank further submitted that it is the guarantor who has approached this Tribunal as an aggrieved party while the mortgagor has conceded to the sale and did not raise any objections to the same nor has challenged it. Ld.Counsel had demonstrated their actions while issuing the impugned sale notice and submitted that the impugned sale notice is dated 20.04.2022 scheduling sale to 17.05.2022, which was served on 23.04.2022. Paper publication is caused on

¶25

¶26

S.A. 234 of 2022 20.05.2023

¶27

26.04.2022 and affixture is also duly caused on the schedule property thus complying with all the rules and provisions as contemplated under law.

¶28

From the foregone submissions of respective parties through their Ld.Counsels, it is evident that respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law and had demonstrated the same through their counter and typed set of documents, copies of which are duly furnished to the Ld.Counsel for applicant. As applicant could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Accordingly, this 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.

¶30

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶31

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

¶32

guidelines.

¶33

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through e-drt, on this the 20^th day of May, 2023)

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶36

PRESIDING OFFICER

N Divakar v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Divakar v. Tamilnad Mercantile 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

Mr S Dinesh Kannan versus Axis Bank

D and a Corporate Residency Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

Mrs Elavarasi versus Indian Bank

S Nanda Kumar versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

S Nanda Kumar versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

N Divakar versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited