Dismissed

S Elamathy v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

DRT9 Feb 2023SA/288/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenging a Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act was dismissed as no procedural infirmities were established and the scheduled sale was infructuous. The applicant was directed to seek a negotiated settlement by March 31, 2023.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice dismissed; applicant allowed time until 31.03.2023 to negotiate settlement; pending applications closed; interim stay vacated.

S Elamathy versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 288 of 2022 09.02.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 09^th day of February, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 288 of 2022

¶7

Mr.S.Elamathy S/o.B.Shunmugam No.1, Muthu Irulandi Nagar 2^nd Street, Anakaputhur, Chennai – 600 070. …Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

M/s.Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Caddie Commercial Tower, Regus Business Centre, 5^th Floor, Aerocity (Dial) New Delhi – 110 037. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Anil Relwani. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.S.Sathiyanarayanan.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 25.05.2022 issued by respondent financial institution scheduling sale to 30.06.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,68,63,186/-.

¶14

Respondent institution had entered appearance and filed counter and typed set

¶15

of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act.

¶16

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of

¶17

applicant that he availed business loan to the tune of Rs.2,46,20,000/- from City Union

¶18

¶19

S.A. 288 of 2022 09.02.2023

¶20

Bank (assignor of respondent financial institution herein) from the year 2015 and was regular in repayment of EMIs. However, due to floods during the year 2015, applicant suffered severe loss and suffered set back in business, hence could not repay the dues regularly, thus resulting in default of repayment of instalments and initiation of recovery measures by respondent institution. It is submitted that respondent without considering their OTS proposal, had proceeded further and issued the subject impugned sale notice.

¶21

Ld. counsel for applicant fairly admitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent institution and further submitted that applicant is making sincere efforts to settle the loan account amicably by approaching respondent institution for a negotiated settlement and prayed time for the same.

¶22

Whereas Ld. counsel for respondent institution submitted that respondent bank has followed the procedures as warranted under law and that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent while issuing the sale notice and that as no sale had taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and that this SA has become infructuous.

¶23

As applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent institution while issuing the subject impugned sale notice and that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders, this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

¶25

S.A. 288 of 2022 09.02.2023

¶26

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. However, applicant is at liberty to approach respondent institution for a negotiated settlement and settle the loan account by or before 31.03.2023, failing which respondent institution will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law beyond 31.03.2023. Interim stay, 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 PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 09^th day of February, 2023)

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

S Elamathy v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Elamathy v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

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

Paul Radje versus Rbl Bank Limited

C Janarthanan versus Union Bank of India

Mr S Purushothaman versus The a O Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Devendiran

State Bank of India versus Amudha

Union Bank of India versus Subshini B