Dhanajayan v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
In an application challenging an e-auction sale notice for recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application without costs to set aside the notice issued by the bank due to procedural non-compliance, granting the bank liberty to proceed afresh.
What did the court decide?
The Sale Notice dated 27.03.2023 set aside. Liberty granted to respondent bank to proceed further if default continues. Sale notice expenses not to be debited.
What the court decided
1
SA No. 247 of 2023
18.08.2023
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2023
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 247 of 2023
Mr. Dhananjayan, S/o. Subbarayan, No.232, Pillayarkoil Street, Anna Nagar, Pillaichavadi, Pondicherry – 605 104. ….Applicant Vs.
The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Pondicherry Engineering College Branch, Block E, No.1, Ground Floor, II Wing, Pillaichavadi – 605 104. ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J. Prince Counsel for Respondent : M/s. P.M. Surendhar
ORDER
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned E-Auction Sale Notice should be set aside due to procedural lapses regarding the 30-day notice period.
Whether the Respondent Bank is granted liberty to initiate proceedings afresh if the borrower's default continues.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mr. Dhananjayan
- respondent
The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank
Coram
Ganapathi K.R.K
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court