Allowed

K Palani v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT13 Apr 2023SA/266/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenging a SARFAESI sale was allowed. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held the bank failed to prove proper service of the sale notice, as the statutory 15-day gap between service and auction was not maintained. The sale was thus set aside, though the bank may proceed further if the mortgage validity is establishe

What did the court decide?

Sale set aside; Set of documents evidencing service of notice submitted by the bank are inadequate to meet the statutory requirement of 15 days gap.

K Palani versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 266 of 2022 13.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 13^th day of April, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 266 of 2022

¶7

K.Palani

¶8

S/o.Late Kandiban H.No.10, Bahour Road Uruvaiyar, Mangalam Pondicerry – 605 110 ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1. The Authorised Officer

¶11

Indian Overseas Bank Reddiyarpalyam Branch No.106, Villianur Main Road Reddiyarpalayam Puducherry – 605 010

¶12

2. D.Ramkumar

¶13

S/o M.Devadoss 44, Pillaiyar Koil Street Devanampattinam Cuddalore – 607 001 ….Respondents

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.Baskar & A.Periyasamy Counsel for Respondent bank : M/s. Ananda Gomathy & R.Roshan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This SA is filed challenging the sale held on 27.04.2022 pursuant to sale notice dated 11.04.2022 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.74,20,696/-

¶18

Respondent bank entered appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing the actions taken by them under the Act.

¶19

¶20

S.A. 266 of 2022 13.04.2023

¶21

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that the property mortgaged belongs to his father who stood as guarantor for the loan facilities availed by him. It is his further case that respondent bank has not followed the procedure as warranted under law and that the impugned sale notice is also not served upon him in a manner known to law. It is the case of applicant that there is no 15 days notice also that is served upon either the borrower or the guarantors and therefore had violated the provisions of law.

¶23

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent bank had filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank had demonstrated their actions through their typed set of documents. On perusal of the same it is observed that the impugned sale notice dated 11.04.2022 could be served only on 16.04.2022 while the sale is scheduled to 27.04.2022 which concludes that there is no 15 days time between the service of sale notice and the date of auction. Respondent bank despite taking several adjournments to confirm that the sale notice has been served in a proper manner as warranted under the act could not furnish the same. Hence the contention of applicant, that the respondent bank has not followed the procedure as warranted under law while issuing the impugned sale notice, notwithstanding his contention with regard to invalid mortgage also, are sufficient grounds to allow this SA.

¶24

In the result, as respondent bank could not establish its wires as warranted under law while issuing the impugned sale notice, the present SA is liable to be allowed and accordingly, SA stands allowed however without costs. Respondent bank will be at

¶25

¶26

S.A. 266 of 2022 13.04.2023

¶27

liberty to proceed further in accordance to law if the default of the borrowers continues and if they are able to establish contrary to the contentions of applicant herein with regard to the validity of their subsisting mortgage.

¶28

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶29

With the above directions, SA stands disposed.

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through e-drt, on this the 13^th day of April, 2023)

¶32

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶33

PRESIDING OFFICER

K Palani v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Palani v. Indian Overseas 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

M Kanakavalli versus Canara Bank

Renuka Devi versus Repco Bank

V Tamilselvan versus Union Bank of India

Sri R Robert Donison versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited

K kovalane versus Indian Overseas Bank

Life Insurance Corporation Of India versus M s Phoenix Arc Private Limited