Allowed

Mrs R Santhanalakshmi v. Indian Bank

DRT3 Mar 2023SA/26/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an SARFAESI application challenging an auction sale notice. The applicant contested the sale scheduled due to alleged procedural defaults by the respondent bank, specifically failure to affix the notice and absence of bidders. The court set aside the pending interim order and permitted the bank to redraw the notice.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI application allowed without costs; interim order vacated; sale notice withdrawn with liberty to issue fresh notice.

Mrs R Santhanalakshmi versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 26 of 2023 03.03.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 03^rd day of March, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 26 of 2023

¶8

Mrs.R.Santhanalakshmi, W/o.S.Rajkumar, Prop. of Sri Lakshmi Associates, R/o Chinna Vagappu North Aranmanai Street, Mayiladuthurai. …Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer Indian Bank, Koranad Branch, No.64C, No.2 Road, Koranad, Mayiladuthurai – 609 001. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G.Sanjeevi. Counsel for Respondent : M/s. P.V.Murlidhar.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Auction Sale Notice dated 08.12.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling auction sale to 20.01.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.58,78,677/-.

¶15

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that applicant did not comply with second part of conditional order and had remitted a sum of Rs.1 lakh only out of Rs.5.8 lakhs.

¶16

¶17

S.A. 26 of 2023 03.03.2023

¶18

Today a memo is filed on behalf of respondent bank submitting therein that respondent bank has failed to cause affixture of sale notice on the immovable property and hence respondent bank may be permitted to withdraw the sale notice dated 08.12.2023 impugned in this SA. Ld. counsel for respondent bank further submitted that sale did not take place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and hence respondent bank may be permitted to issue fresh sale notice.

¶19

Copy of memo is served to Ld. counsel appearing for applicant.

¶20

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. Memo filed on behalf of respondent bank is taken on record.

¶21

In the result, this SA is allowed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed. Respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of borrower continues.

¶22

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶23

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

¶24

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 03^rd day of March, 2023)

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶27

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mrs R Santhanalakshmi v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs R Santhanalakshmi v. Indian Bank

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

Lingam Timber Plywoods versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

subramniam M versus Icici Bank Limited

K Ravichandran versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus New Murugan Stores

Khamesh versus Bank of India

Manoharan versus State Bank of India