Dismissed

Mr R Rajarajan S O Raja Chidambaram v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT20 Jul 2023SA/334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, applicants challenged a sale notice due to their failure to remit One Time Settlement amounts within the extended deadline. The Presiding Officer dismissed the application finding no procedural infirmities and directed the applicants to attempt a negotiated settlement by a specific date.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dismissed; Applicants granted time to approach bank for negotiated settlement; Bank permitted to proceed with SARFAESI measures after the grace period.

Mr R Rajarajan S O Raja Chidambaram versus City Union Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 334 of 2022 20.07.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 334 of 2022

¶7

1. Mr.R.Rajarajan

¶8

S/o RajaChidambaram Proprietor of M/s.Neel Power System No.103A, South Street, Bahour Pondicherry – 607 402

¶9

2. Mrs.R.Arulselvi

¶10

W/o R.Rajarajan No.103A, South Street, Bahour Pondicherry – 607 402

¶11

3. Mrs.N.Anbuselvi

¶12

W/o K.Kannan No.103A, South Street, Bahour Pondicherry – 607 402

¶13

… Applicants

¶14

Vs.

¶15

The Authorised officer

¶16

M/s City Union Bank Limited Credit Recovery and Management Department “Narayana”, Administrative Office No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar Kumbakonam – 612 001 … Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicants : M/s. G.J.Baskar, R.Kavinilavu, J.Arun Prasad, M.Senthil Kumar & P.Ramya Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S.Anuradha Balaji, M.Vigneshwaran & B.Shruti

¶17

¶18

S.A. 334 of 2022 20.07.2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 20.06.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 28.07.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,33,07,589/- from applicants.

¶21

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶22

It is the case of applicants that they had approached respondent bank for amicable settlement and had already offered an OTS proposal seeking to settle the loan dues payable to respondent bank. However, respondent bank without considering the explanations made by applicants with regard to their inability to remit funds, respondent bank had rejected OTS offer and were demanding the entire amount as claimed in the impugned sale notice. Ld.Counsel submits that applicants had complied with the interim conditions imposed by this Tribunal and owing to the same, no sale could take place on

¶23

the scheduled date and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. Ld.Counsel further submitted that, it is the endeavour of applicants to again approach respondent bank and make enhanced offers, for consideration of their OTS and prayed time for doing the same.

¶24

Whereas Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent bank submitted that respondent bank had evidenced their actions through their counter and typed set of documents, while issuing the impugned sale notice, copy of which is duly served on the Ld.Counsel appearing for applicants. Ld.Counsel had demonstrated the actions of the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice which are found to be in accordance to law. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submits that applicants are given an OTS for

¶25

¶26

S.A. 334 of 2022 20.07.2023

¶27

Rs.1.10 crores as against the book outstanding of a little over Rs.2 crores and were expected to discharge their debt by 30.03.2023. However applicants did not do so and sought for 3 months extension of time and submitted that they will be able to pay the balance amount without fail. Considering the submissions of applicants, respondent bank has again extended the time up to 30.06.2023 for causing payment of the OTS amount. However on 28.06.2023, applicants had again sent yet another letter seeking extension of time which was duly refused and as applicants could not remit the amounts within the extended time, the OTS stood cancelled and therefore applicants are liable to discharge the entire amount due in the sale notice together with subsequent interest, costs, charges and expenses thereupon. Ld.Counsel submits that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted while issuing the impugned sale notice and therefore prayed for appropriate orders.

¶28

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Accordingly SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Applicants are at liberty to approach respondent bank for a negotiated settlement and close the loan account by or before 31.08.2023. Respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further with their SARFAESI measures beyond 01.09.2023, if the default of the borrowers continues. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶30

¶31

S.A. 334 of 2022 20.07.2023

¶32

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶33

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

¶34

guidelines.

¶35

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me through e- drt, on this the 20^th day of July, 2023)

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr R Rajarajan S O Raja Chidambaram v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr R Rajarajan S O Raja Chidambaram v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus M/S Sujatha Biotech

Yes Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Transports

P Preethi versus Karur Vysya Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Gurudev Enterprises And Another

City Union Bank Limited versus Rajalakshmai

Mrs Kalpana versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited