Dismissed

T R Vinod v. Union Bank of India

DRT15 Mar 2023SA/365/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Section 13(4) SARFAESI application filed by borrowers against a Notice of E-Auction. The court held the notice to be infructuous due to lack of bidders but permitted borrowers to approach the bank for amicable settlement within a month.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs; liberty to approach bank for settlement within 30 days; interim stay order vacated.

T R Vinod versus Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 365 of 2022 15.03.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 365 of 2022

¶7

1. T.P.Vinod S/o. Paramasivam Old Door No.7, New No.15 Davit Villa Flat No.5, Valluvan Street Purasawalkkam Chennai – 600 007

¶8

2. T.P.Balu S/o. Paramasivam Old Door No.7, New No.15 Davit Villa Flat No.5, Valluvan Street Purasawalkkam Chennai – 600 007 ….Applicants Vs. The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India Chennai Anna Salai Branch (eAB Mount Road Branch) Ground Floor, LIC of India 102, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002 ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared:

¶9

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. G.Veerapathiran, A.Sonal & G.Nivetitha Counsel for Respondent : M/s. R.Gowthama Narayanan, V.P.Parivallal & M.Bakrutheen

¶10

¶11

S.A. 365 of 2022 15.03.2023

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 20.07.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 30.08.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,16,000/- due as on 30.06.2022.

¶14

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

¶15

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶16

It is the case of applicants that the demand notice issued to them under Sec.13(2) is not valid since the respondent bank has permitted operations, subsequent to the date of declaration of the account as NPA. It is the case of applicants that there were two debit entries subsequent to the date of NPA which the respondent bank is claiming to be interest debits and not any withdrawals or operations performed by either the borrowers or the co-obligants who are applicants herein. Ld.Counsel for applicants

¶17

submits that in view of their compliance of the interim condition imposed by this Tribunal, stay has come into operation owing to which no sale had taken place and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. Ld.Counsel for applicants further submits that liberty be with applicants for raising the issues that are raised in this SA and also any further issues that may crop up subsequently, with the applicants in any eventual situation, if they had to challenge the SARFAESI actions of the respondent bank, notwithstanding their endeavour to enter into an OTS with respondent bank since it is only a housing loan.

¶18

¶19

S.A. 365 of 2022 15.03.2023

¶20

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submits that counter and typed set filed on behalf of respondent bank evidence their actions and also submits that there were no bidders on the scheduled date and even on that count, the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. Both the counsels did not raise any issues with regard to the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and therefore admit that there are no infirmities.

¶21

In the circumstances, as applicants intend to approach respondent bank for an amicable settlement or to upgrade their loan account, applicants are permitted to do so by or before 15.04.2023, failing which respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law if the default of the borrower continues.

¶22

Accordingly, this 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.

¶23

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed

¶24

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

¶25

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 15^th day of March,2023)

¶26

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

T R Vinod v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T R Vinod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rr Manohar versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Mr v Kannan versus Repco Home Finance Limited

Mrs Rajeswari versus The Authourised Officer Hdfc Limited

P I Sabastian versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

P I Sabastian versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

Sinouvassane versus Karnataka Bank Limited