Dismissed

M S Upx Ventures Private Limited v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT27 Apr 2023SA/386/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI Application challenging a sale notice. The court held the applicant failed to prove any procedural infirmity. The application was disposed of with liberty to settle the loan by May 31, 2023, after which the bank may proceed with recovery.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; applicant must settle loan by May 31, 2023, otherwise bank may proceed further; prior interim orders vacated.

M S Upx Ventures Private Limited versus City Union Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.386 of 2022 27.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 27^th day of April, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 386 of 2022

¶7

M/s.UFX Ventures Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, Mr.Usman Faheed, 33/1, Wallajah Road, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 002.

¶8

Mr.Usman Faheed, No.7, 1^st Avenue, 1^st Cross Street, Vettuvankeni, ECR Road, Chennai – 600 041.

¶9

Mr.Samiaf Faheed, W/o.Usman Faheed, No.71, 1^st Avenue, 1^st Cross Street, Vettuvankeni, ECR Road, Chennai – 600 041.

¶10

Gayathri Auto Services, Rep. by its Partner Mr.Usman Faheed, No.3, Padmanabha Nagar, Adayar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶11

Mrs.P.Dhanalakshmi, W/o.Late.V.J.Prabhakar, No.57, Muthaiah Street, Theynampet, Chennai – 600 086.

¶12

Mr.Usman Fayaz, S/o.Usman Pasha, No.71, 1^st Avenue, 1^st Cross Street, Vettuvankeni, ECR Road, Chennai – 600 041.

¶13

¶14

S.A.386 of 2022 27.04.2023

¶15

Mr.Usman Faheed, Representing Mrs.Zubetha Begum, No.71, 1^st Avenue, 1^st Cross Street, Vettuvankeni, ECR Road, Chennai – 600 041.

¶16

M/s.Smart Oils, Rep. by its Partner, Mr.Usman Fayaz, 33/1, Wallajah Road, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 002.

¶17

M/s.UF Printer, Rep. by its Partner Mr.Usman Faheed, 33/1, Wallajah Road, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 002.

¶18

M/s.UF Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Mr.Usman Faheed, 33/1, Wallajah Road, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 002. ….Applicants

¶19

Vs.

¶20

City Union Bank Limited, Through its General Manager, Credit Recovery and Management Department, “Narayana”, Aministrative Office, No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶21

City Union Bank Limited, Triplicane Branch, No.23, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Near Thiruvateeswara Temple, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. ….Respondents

¶22

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶23

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Kumarpal R Chopra. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.R.Sivaraman.

¶24

¶25

S.A.386 of 2022 27.04.2023

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the Sale Notice dated 08.08.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 20.09.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,44,57,546/-

¶28

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

¶29

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶30

It is the case of applicant that they intend to approach respondent bank and seek permission from them to scout for purchasers for the mortgaged property, since it would be their contention that they can acquire better price than by sale through bank. However, it is the case of applicant that they are yet to approach respondent bank. Ld. counsel for applicant submits that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and thus the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. Ld. counsel submits that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank and prayed time for reporting settlement.

¶31

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

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. Applicant is at liberty to approach respondent bank and settle the loan

¶33

¶34

S.A.386 of 2022 27.04.2023

¶35

account by or before 31.05.2023, failing which respondent bank will be permitted to

¶36

proceed further in accordance to law beyond 31.05.2023.

¶37

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 27^th day of April, 2023)

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

M S Upx Ventures Private Limited v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Upx Ventures Private Limited 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

M s Kriti Inter Trade versus Canara Bank

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S.Fortune Mix India Pvt. Ltd.

Premier Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. versus Dbs Bank Limited

S Dhanasekar versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Dulesierni Lionel versus Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.

Mr R Ravichandren son of R Ramasamy versus Karur Vysya Bank