Dismissed

M s Green Trendz Super Market v. Union Bank of India

DRT13 Mar 2023SA/426/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application challenging a sale notice, the applicant contended against the scheduled auction. The respondent bank moved to withdraw the sale notice due to lack of bidders. The Tribunal held the application infructuous upon withdrawal and dismissed it without costs.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice withdrawal permitted; SA dismissed without costs; liberty to issue fresh notice.

M s Green Trendz Super Market versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 426 of 2022 13.03.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 426 of 2022

¶7

1.	M/s.Green Trendz Super Market, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.S.Sudhakar Shanthinikethan Star, Gangai amman koil Street, Periyapillery, Thaiyur, Chennai – 603 103.
2.	Mr.S.Sudhakar S/o.Sadaiyappan, 204, Bhajanai Koil Street, Melakottaiyur, Chengalpattu, Chennai – 600 127.
3.	Mr.Sadaiyappan, S/o.Parthiban, 204, Bhajanai Koil Street, Melakottaiyur, Chengalpattu, Chennai – 600 127. .…Applicants
	Vs.
The	Authorised Officer
Unio	n Bank of India,
Regi	onal Office,
Chen	nai West,
No.1 Chen	68, Linghi Chetty Street, nai – 600 001. ….Respondent
	Counsels on record / appeared:
	Counsel for Applicant : M/s.M.Dharani Dharan.
	Counsel for Respondents : M/s.G.V.Anjaneya Babu.

¶8

¶9

S.A. 426 of 2022 13.03.2023

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 09.09.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 20.10.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,53,879/-.

¶12

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for respondent bank who submitted that since the auction sale could not be concluded for want of bidders, respondent bank may be permitted to withdraw the sale notice dated 09.09.2022 impugned in this SA, with liberty to issue fresh sale notice. Ld. counsel for respondent bank also made an endorsement to that effect in SA paper book.

¶13

Perused. As the very sale notice impugned in this SA is withdrawn by respondent bank as no sale had taken place, this SA has become infructuous.

¶14

In the result, this SA is 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. Liberty be with respondent bank to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶15

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶16

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

¶17

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13^th day of March, 2023)

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

M s Green Trendz Super Market v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M s Green Trendz Super Market v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Deepa versus State Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus Sasikala

M s City Union Bank Limited versus M s Mohith Chemicals

M s Indostar Capital Finance Ltd. versus M s M R Garden Services Pvt. Ltd.

South Indian Bank versus Thavaselvi Ashokan

Bank of India versus Shanthi