ganesh v. Indian Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The tribunal declared the sale notice issued by the bank null and void for failing to serve a clear 30-day notice to the applicant as mandated by the SARFAESI Act and related rules, and imposed costs on the bank.
What did the court decide?
The impugned sale notice fixing the sale on 12.08.2022 is struck down. The respondent is directed to reimburse costs for issuance, publication, and affixture of the notice and pay a cost of Rs.15,000.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 13th day of January, 2023
PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.408/2022
Mr.R.Ganesh, S/o.Mr.Rajendra Babu, Door No.41, Mohanan Street, Arani palayam, Arani Town & Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District 632 301.
… Applicant.
Vs.
The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, STR BSNL Buildings, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai 606 601.
Also at Indian Bank, Arni Branch, P.B.No.15, 30, Vadiraja Street, Kosapalayam, Arni – 632 301. … Respondent. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.B.Rajesh. Counsel for Respondents : M/s.Saravana Prakash.S. …..
O R D E R
- This application is filed by the applicant who is the borrower under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after called SARFAESI Act or the ‘Act’, as the case be) with the prayer to declare the sale notice dt.11.07.2022, scheduling the sale on 12.08.2022 as null and void.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the measures taken by the respondent leading up to the issuance of sale notice were in accordance with the statute?
Whether the sale notice was flawed for the reason of not giving a clear 30 days notice to the borrower?
Whether the applicant is entitled to costs for being compelled to approach the Tribunal?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mr.R.Ganesh
- respondent
The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank
Coram
T.RAJESH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court