Allowed

Dharama Pharmacy Private Limited v. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

DRT21 Sept 2023SA/425/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's SARFAESI application challenging a Sale Notice. The tribunal set aside the sale notice and sale certificate because the respondent institution withdrew the certificate due to observed infirmities, granting liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 03.08.2023 and sale certificate were set aside. Respondent directed not to debit sale notice expenses. Liberty granted to respondent to proceed afresh.

Dharama Pharmacy Private Limited versus Hinduja Leyland… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.425 of 2023 21.09.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 21^st day of September, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 425 of 2023

¶8

M/s.Dharma Pharmacy Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, Dr.V.Dharmalingam, No.23, Parameswari Nagar, Second Street, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.M.Vijayan. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.K.J.Parthasarathy.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 03.08.2023 issued

¶15

by respondent institution scheduling sale to 22.08.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,89,67,454/-.

¶16

Today a memo is filed on behalf of respondent institution submitting therein that sale notice impugned in this SA has been despatched on 08.08.2023 and delivered to borrowers on 09.08.2023 and sale has been conducted on 13^th day (22.08.2023) from the date of delivery of sale notice. Though sale was concluded for Rs.13.06 crores and

¶17

sale certificate has been issued in favour of highest bidder, the secured creditor had

¶18

¶19

S.A.425 of 2023 21.09.2023

¶20

cancelled / annulled the sale certificate and Sale Notice dated 03.08.2023 is hereby withdrawn, in view of the said infirmity, with liberty to initiate proceedings afresh. Thus submitting Ld. counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶21

Copy of memo is served to Ld. counsel for applicant.

¶22

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for respective parties. Memo filed on behalf of respondent institution is taken on file.

¶23

In the result, SA is allowed, however without costs. Sale Notice dated 03.08.2023 scheduling sale to 22.08.2023 and consequential sale certificate are hereby set aside. Respondent institution is directed not to debit the subject impugned Sale Notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account. Liberty be with respondent to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶24

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

¶25

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶26

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

¶27

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 21^st day of September, 2023)

¶28

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Dharama Pharmacy Private Limited v. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharama Pharmacy Private Limited v. Hinduja Leyland Finance 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

Idbi Bank versus Srinivasan

Bank of India versus Ms Jcr Traders

Central Bank of India versus M S Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam & Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences Health Medical Education and Research Foundation

Canara Bank versus M/S Jai Fortune Bakers

Canara Bank versus Mumtaj Begum

P Isaiyas versus Bank of Baroda