Dismissed

Venkatesan S v. Union Bank of India

DRT7 Mar 2023SA/424/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application challenging a sale notice issued by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, finding no infirmity in the recovery procedure followed.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application is dismissed without costs. Interim stay, if any, is vacated.

What the court decided

Venkatesan S versus Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 424 of 2022 07.03.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 07^th day of March, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 424 of 2022

¶8

Mr.S.Venkatesan, S/o.Srinivasan, Flat No.S2 Second Floor Block F, Plot No.11 and 12 SKC Jeeva Enclave, Devendra Nagar, Kilambalam Village, Urapakkam, Chennai – 600 048. .…Applicant

¶9

Vs. The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India, Chennai Anna Salai Branch, Ground Floor, LIC of India, 153, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.K.M.Suresh. Counsel for Respondent : Mr.R.Gowthama Narayanan.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 15.09.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 20.10.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,88,043/-.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

S.A. 424 of 2022 07.03.2023

¶17

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicant that he availed Housing Loan facility to the tune of Rs.14.50 lakhs from respondent bank and offered his immovable property morefully mentioned in schedule to SA as collateral security for due repayment of loan thus availed. Though applicant was regular in repayment of installments, due to sudden ill-health and Pandemic Covid19 situation, applicant could not continue to remit EMIs. Due to irregular payments, account slipped into NPA status and respondent bank had initiated recovery measures under SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that respondent bank failed to give 30 days clear notice to applicant and had issued the sale notice without obtaining fresh valuation for the secured asset.

¶18

Whereas Ld. counsel for respondent bank demonstrated the actions taken by them under the Act through their counter and typed set of documents. It is submitted that subsequent to availing of Housing Loan, as borrower committed default in repayment of installments, loan account was classified as NPA on 29.07.2017 and demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 03.12.2018 was issued. As applicant miserably failed to repay the dues, respondent bank proceeded further with their SARFAESI measures and issued subject impugned sale notice dated 15.09.2022 scheduling sale to 20.10.2022, which was duly served to applicant in person who had also furnished his present address while acknowledging the sale notice. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that the sale notice was affixed in the secured asset and was published in ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’ on 19.09.2022. Proof of paper publications filed vide SR No.2909/23 today before the Registry after serving copies of the same on the other side. Respondent bank had obtained valuation of the

¶19

¶20

S.A. 424 of 2022 07.03.2023

¶21

property in accordance to law before fixing the reserve price, which is evident from the valuation report dated 15.09.2022 filed along with typed set of documents.

¶22

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice. It is further submitted that applicant did not comply with second part of conditional order and that sale did not take place on the scheduled date for want of bidders. Thus submitting, Ld. counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶23

From the foregone submissions, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice, the same has become infructuous. Hence this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim stay, if

¶25

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

¶26

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶27

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

¶28

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 07^th day of March, 2023)

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Venkatesan S v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Venkatesan S 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

Manoharan versus State Bank of India

Khamesh versus Bank of India

Mrs R Santhanalakshmi versus Indian Bank

Amutha versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

M s City Union Bank Limited versus M s Mohith Chemicals

Idbi Bank versus Sasikala