Dismissed

Bkr Hotels v. Union Bank of India

DRT16 Jun 2023SA/285/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal held that the sale notice became infructuous due to lack of bidders and found no infirmities in the bank's procedure, rendering the appeal devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; interim orders vacated; pending IAs closed.

Bkr Hotels versus Union Bank of India — Arbitration | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 285 of 2023 16.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 285 of 2023

¶7

1. BKR Hotel

¶8

Rep. by its partners Mr.D.Balakrishna Raja No.9 of 6, Venkatesan Street T.Nagar Chennai – 600 017

¶9

2. Mr.D.R.Balakrishna Raja

¶10

S/o. Dhanushkodi Raja No.9 of 6, Venkatesan Street T.Nagar Chennai – 600 017 … Applicants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Union Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch No.38 &39, Whites Road Royapettah Chennai – 600 014 … Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. Raj and Raj Associates Counsel for Respondent : M/s. N.Venkateswaran & V.Rajeswari

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 06.05.2023 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 25.05.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,66,59,916.20p from applicants.

¶17

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶18

¶19

S.A. 285 of 2023 16.06.2023

¶20

It is the case of applicants that they are in negotiation terms with the respondent bank, but however respondent bank has been prosecuting their SARFAESI actions without let. It is submitted that valuation of the property was grossly low and therefore the actions of the respondent bank are not in accordance to law. Junior counsel appearing for the Ld.Counsel for applicants submitted that applicants intend to approach respondent bank for regularisation of their loan account or for prosecuting OTS if possible. Ld.Counsel submits that as no sale had taken place on the scheduled date, for want of bidders, the impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶21

Whereas respondent bank has put up appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld.Counsel submits that this is the sixth consecutive sale notice issued against the borrowers for recovery of money, but however as there were no bidders, the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. Ld.Counsel has demonstrated that just before the issuance of the impugned sale notice, respondent bank has taken valuation of the property in March 2023 from two different valuers and the valuation is fixed basing on the valuation report furnished by them. Ld.Counsel submits that although distress sale value of the property is put at Rs.30 crores, respondent bank represented by its security committee, has fixed the reserve price at Rs.34 crores, but even after fixing the reserve price at Rs.34 crores, the auction failed for want of bidders and therefore it is not correct to state that the valuation of the immovable property is not in accordance to law and that the price is low. Ld.Counsel submitted that it is not the case of applicants also that they have any purchaser for a better price and that they can fetch anything higher than the reserve price. Ld.Counsel has reiterated that the present impugned sale notice is the sixth consecutive sale notice

¶22

¶23

S.A. 285 of 2023 16.06.2023

¶24

which has become infructuous for want of bidders and that respondent bank is unable to recover any money from applicants herein and are continuing their default despite several attempts by the respondent bank continuously. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel has demonstrated their actions while issuing the impugned sale notice, which are found to be in accordance to law. Copy of the counter and typed set of documents are duly furnished to the Ld.Counsel for applicants.

¶25

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and even otherwise as the very sale notice has become infructuous for want of bidders and no sale has taken place, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly 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.

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me through e- drt, on this the 16^th day of June, 2023)

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶32

PRESIDING OFFICER

Bkr Hotels v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bkr Hotels v. Union Bank of India

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

Sridevi versus Aptus value housing finance limited

A Ramaraju versus The Authorised Officer Incred Financial Services Ltd.

Yes Vee Brothers versus State Bank of India

Ceedeeyes Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd. versus The a O Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Vinoth Kumar

Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited