Allowed

M s Sri Sheshasai Enterprises v. Union Bank of India

DRT19 Dec 2023SA/423/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the Tribunal allowed the challenge against an e-auction sale notice due to failed service and lack of bidders. The sale notice was set aside, and the bank was directed not to debit associated expenses to the borrower's account.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 14.09.2022 set aside; respondent bank directed not to debit sale notice expenses to borrower's loan account.

M s Sri Sheshasai Enterprises versus Union Bank of India — Consumer Protection | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.No.423 of 2022 19.12.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 423 of 2022

¶7

1. M/s. Sri Sheshasai Enterprises Represented by its proprietor Venkateswarlu R Old No.551, New No.424 M.T.H. Road, Avadi Chennai – 600 054

¶8

2. Mrs.Lavanya W/o Venkateswarlu R Old No.551, New No.424 M.T.H. Road, Avadi Chennai – 600 054 ….Applicants

¶9

¶10

The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India (Formerly Andhra Bank) Avadi Branch, Flat No.16 Pc 3-4, Opp to New Avadi Township Building Near Avadi Market, Avadi Chennai – 600 054. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicants : M/s B.Jaya Counsel for respondent : M/s S.Parthasarathy

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 14.09.2022 issued

¶14

by respondent bank scheduling e-auction sale to 20.10.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,84,370/-

¶15

¶16

S.A.No.423 of 2022 19.12.2023

¶17

No representation on behalf of applicant even during second round of call work. Heard Ld.counsel for respondent bank who submitted that although counter and typed set of documents are duly filed on behalf of respondent bank, the service of impugned sale notice could not be established in a manner known to law and submits to the said infirmity. Ld.counsel also submits that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and on that count the impugned sale notice has become infructuous and prayed for passing appropriate orders.

¶18

In the circumstances, as respondent bank could not establish its procedure as warranted under law while issuing the impugned sale notice dated 14.09.2022 scheduling sale to 20.10.2022 and further that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders, the SA is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, SA stands allowed. Consequently, sale notice dated 14.09.2022 is hereby set aside. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the impugned sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account. .

¶19

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

¶20

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶21

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

¶22

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19^th day of December, 2023)

¶23

Sd/- PRESIDING OFFICER

M s Sri Sheshasai Enterprises v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M s Sri Sheshasai Enterprises 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

G Kannan versus Axis Bank

N K Rajasundaram versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Chan Basha versus Idbi Bank

Bank of India versus M/S Sri Sivasakthi Auto Ancillaries Madras Private Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sundaram

T Udayakumar versus Punjab National Bank