Allowed

M Jagabar Ali v. Indian Bank

DRT11 Dec 2023SA/371/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicants' SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice and subsequent e-auction sale notice. The bank withdrew the notice due to an infirmity in service. The Tribunal set aside the notices, restored possession to the mortgagor, and denied costs.

What did the court decide?

Possession notice dated 30.09.2022 and impugned sale notice set aside; possession restored to mortgagor; liberty to bank to initiate action afresh.

M Jagabar Ali versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.No.371 of 2023 11.12.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 371 of 2023

¶7

1. M.Jagabar Ali S/o Mohamed Ibrahim 3/472, Manalmettu Street Vennavasal Koradachery Kodavasal Taluk Tiruvarur District – 613 703

¶8

2. J.Pathernisha W/o M.Jagabar Ali 3/472, Manalmettu Street Vennavasal Koradachery Kodavasal Taluk Tiruvarur District – 613 703 ….Applicants Vs

¶9

The Authorized Officer Indian bank, Koradachery Branch 54-B, Kamarajar Road Koradachery Tiruvarur District ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s K.Kannan Counsel for respondent : M/s P.V.Murlidhar

¶12

ORDER

¶13

1. This SA is filed challenging the E-auction sale notice dated 05.07.2023 issued by

¶14

respondent bank scheduling e-auction sale to 24.07.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,66,761/-.

¶15

¶16

S.A.No.371 of 2023 11.12.2023

¶17

Today Ld.Counsel for respondent bank had filed a memo vide SR.No. 16921/2023, after serving copies on the other side, submitting therein that on perusal of the documents, it is found that service to the 3^rd notice addressee, one Mr.Mani Adhimoolam was not sent and since there is an infirmity, respondent bank is hereby withdrawing the 13(4) possession notice dated 30.09.2022, with liberty to proceed afresh in the manner known to law. Ld. counsel for respondent prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶18

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for both parties. Memo filed on behalf of respondent bank is taken on file.

¶19

In the result, this SA is allowed, however without costs. Possession Notice dated 30.09.2022 and subsequent impugned sale notice are hereby set aside and possession is restored to mortgagor. Respondent bank is directed not to debit their possession notice and impugned sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account. However, liberty be with respondent to initiate action afresh, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶20

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

¶21

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶22

¶23

S.A.No.371 of 2023 11.12.2023

¶24

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

¶25

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 11^th day of December, 2023)

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

M Jagabar Ali v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Jagabar Ali v. Indian 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

D Nagesh Rao versus Central Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Anuradha Ramalingam

Tharumaiyan versus Indian Bank

Idbi Bank versus Vani Sunil

Union Bank of India versus Mr S Venkatesan And Other

City Union Bank Limited versus Yaaas Enterprisa