Dismissed

Mr S Vijayakumar v. State Bank of India

DRT8 Nov 2023SA/408/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's SARFAESI application challenging an e-auction sale notice, finding no tenable infirmities in the procedure and no sale having taken place. The interim stay order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application dismissed without costs; interim order granted earlier stands vacated; all other IAs pending are closed.

Mr S Vijayakumar versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 408 of 2022 08.11.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 08^th day of November, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 408 of 2022

¶7

Mr.S.Vijayakumar

¶8

S/o Mr.Sivaramakrishnan No.33/F7, Om Suyajothi Muthiah Nagar, Kovilambakkam Chennai – 600 117 … Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1. The Authorised Officer

¶11

State Bank of India

¶12

ARM Branch Chennai

¶13

44, 1^st Floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet Chennai – 600 018

¶14

2. The Branch Manager

¶15

State Bank of India C.I.T Nagar Chennai – 600 035 … Respondents

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. M.Aravind Subramaniam Counsel for Respondents : M/s. N.S.Revathi

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This SA is filed challenging the E-auction Sale Notice dated 26.08.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 11.10.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,88,530/-.

¶20

¶21

S.A. 408 of 2022 08.11.2023

¶22

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶23

It is submitted that applicant intends to approach respondent bank for a negotiated settlement and that in pursuance of the same, they had also remitted amounts. Ld.Counsel for applicant submits that they are ready and willing to enter into a settlement for Rs.12.60 Lakhs being outstanding due and therefore would like to negotiate with respondent bank. Apart from the above said contention, Ld.Counsel for applicant did not raise any further objections with regard to the procedure adopted by respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice. It is also submitted that since applicant had complied both the interim conditions imposed by this Tribunal, while moving the SA, stay came into force which is existing till date.

¶24

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submits that the said account has been declared as an NPA as early as in 2018, subsequent to which demand notice was issued in January 2019 and applicant had made his last payment in January 2019 and after that it is only the compliance of interim condition of this Tribunal and have been making only sporadic payments of their EMIs without any consistency. Ld.Counsel submits that despite taking orders from Ld.CJM and obtaining physical possession of the property which is kept under lock and key, applicant had broken open the seal of the Ld.CJM and made an attempt to enter into the premises on 22.06.2023. Since the matter is sub judice before this Tribunal, respondent bank is awaiting for orders in this SA to proceed further against the applicant and the subsistence of stay is also preventing respondent bank from proceeding further. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank

¶25

¶26

S.A. 408 of 2022 08.11.2023

¶27

has also demonstrated bank’s actions while initiating the impugned sale notice. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for appropriate orders in the present SA.

¶28

Both parties concede that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of interim condition by applicant herein and also further submitted that there are no points to urge or facts to bring to the notice of the Tribunal.

¶29

In the circumstances as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and even otherwise as no sale has taken place on the scheduled date, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

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.

¶31

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 08^th day of November, 2023)

¶34

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr S Vijayakumar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr S Vijayakumar v. State 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

Indian Bank versus Geetha Lakshmi

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Aagna Global Solutions Private Limited

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Perfect Medical Agencies Rep by Its Prop Mr S Arumugam

Uco Bank versus Ms Proart

Uco Bank versus Ms Salonaarti

State Bank of India versus Chandrasekar