Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging an e-auction sale notice for non-compliance of the 15-day notice period, holding the delay an irregularity rather than an illegality since no sale took place on the scheduled date.
Application dismissed without costs; interim orders, if any, stood vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S.A.No.428 of 2023 13.12.2023
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2023
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 428 of 2023
Mr. N.Somasundaram
S/o. Mr.Nithyanantham 22, Bharathidasan Street Vedhachalam Nagar Sevilmedu Kancheepuram – 631 502 ….Applicant
Vs
The Authorized Officer Indian bank, Kancheepuram Main Branch No.11, Ground Floor, TG Tower Annai Indira Gandhi Road Kancheepuram – 631 502 ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s J.Prince Counsel for respondent : M/s C.Ramaiah
ORDER
by respondent bank scheduling sale to 23.08.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,35,49,000/- from applicant.
date of service of the impugned sale notice and the date of sale. It is submitted that
2
S.A.No.428 of 2023 13.12.2023
notices are served through registered post only on 08.08.2023 while the sale is scheduled to 23.08.2023. Ld.Counsel further submitted that even the paper publication was caused only on 08.08.2023 and even on that count there was no statutory period of 15 days which is mandatory under the provisions of the Act. Ld.Counsel further submits that the valuation of the property is also grossly lowered even by taking the distress sale value that is mentioned in the valuation report filed on behalf of respondent bank, which is of the year 2022. Ld.Counsel submitted that as against the distress value of Rs.1.13 crores, respondent bank has fixed the reserve price at Rs.105.30 Lakhs. Ld.Counsel further submitted that this is the 3rd sale notice issued by the respondent bank and that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of interim conditions by the borrowers. It is submitted that applicants had not furnished any acknowledgement with regard to receipt of the demand notice, while applicants are denying service of demand notice on them, in a manner known to law.
3
S.A.No.428 of 2023 13.12.2023
had taken place on the scheduled date, nor did the applicant contemplated exercise of any redemption of the property. It is further submitted that nothing survives in the present SA as no sale had taken place and therefore prayed for appropriate orders.
(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13th day of December, 2023)
Sd/- PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the 15-day statutory period between service of sale notice and auction date was complied with.
Whether the irregularity in timing of sale notice constitutes illegality warranting Tribunal interference.
S/o. Mr.Nithyanantham
The Authorized Officer
Ganapathi K.R.K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
