Dismissed

Mr T N Satyanarayana S o Thillai Natarajan M S Satya Forgings and Agencies v. Canara Bank

DRT20 Feb 2023SA/435/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged the Respondent Bank's Sale Notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal noted the Applicant's lack of representation and failure to repay dues or file a stay. Finding no merit or bonafides, the Tribunal dismissed the Sale Application and disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The Sale Application (SA) stands dismissed. Interim orders granted stand vacated.

Mr T N Satyanarayana S o Thillai Natarajan M S Satya Forgings… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.435 of 2022 20.02.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 435 of 2022

¶8

Mr.T.N.Satyanarayana S/o. Thillai Natarajan Managing Partner, M/s. Satya Forgings and Agencies No.64, V^th Block, 10^th Street,

¶9

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. …Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Authorized Officer Canara Bank Armenian Branch No.69, Armenian Street, Chennai – 600 001. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicants : M/s.T.P.Prabakaran. Counsel for Respondent : M/s. M.Gopi.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 13.09.2022 issued by respondent bank fixing sale on 31.10.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,34,167/-.

¶16

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

¶17

Perused records. This SA was taken up on 29.10.2022, wherein applicant had filed a memo submitting therein that applicant is ready and willing to pay 7.5% of the

¶18

¶19

S.A.435 of 2022 20.02.2023

¶20

outstanding amount before sale and balance 12.5% within a period of eight weeks from the date of initial payment and prayed for interim stay from this Tribunal. Notice was ordered to respondent bank returnable on 28.11.2022. However, on 28.11.2022, there was neither representation on behalf of applicant, nor AOS nor memo reporting payments in terms of their undertaking is filed on behalf of applicant. Even on subsequent hearings on 14.12.2022 and 28.12.2022 there was no representation on behalf of applicant.

¶21

Whereas respondent has filed its counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. It is submitted that subsequent to availing to loan during 2007 and periodical enhancement of the same on 2016, 2019 and 2020, applicant committed default in repayment of EMIs. Despite repeated requests, as applicant did not come forward to repay the dues, respondent had classified the loan account as NPA on 31.03.2022 and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 28.04.2022 claiming a sum of Rs.1,97,73,356/- from applicant, which was duly served to applicant. Applicant did not come forward to clear the dues even after expiry of statutory period but had raised objection to the demand notice, which was duly considered and replied by respondent bank. Even after which, as applicant did not come forward to make any payment, respondent issued Possession Notice dated 17.07.2022, which was duly served to borrowers and guarantors on 21.07.2022, possession notice was affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published in two leading newspapers as warranted under law. As applicants did not make any attempts to clear the dues, respondent bank proceeded further and issued Sale Notice dated 27.07.2022 scheduling sale to 29.08.2022, which was challenged by

¶22

¶23

S.A.435 of 2022 20.02.2023

¶24

applicant in SA No.440/22 before DRT-II, Chennai, which came to be dismissed as infructuous as no sale had taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders.

¶25

As there was no sign of repaying the debt by applicant, respondent bank had again issued Sale Notice dated 13.09.2022 scheduling sale to 31.10.2022, which notice was also duly served, affixed and published in newspapers as warranted under law and that sale did not take place on the scheduled date for want of bidders. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent while initiating measures under Act and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶26

Ld. Counsel for respondent has demonstrated their actions in terms of their counter and documents, which are found to be in accordance to law. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that the subject impugned sale notice has become infructuous, as no sale could be held on the scheduled date for want of bidders.

¶27

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any infirmities and neither there was any representation since the date of moving the SA, the present SA is devoid of merits and lacks bonafides and is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without cost. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶29

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶30

¶31

S.A.435 of 2022 20.02.2023

¶32

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

¶33

guidelines.

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20^th day of February, 2023)

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr T N Satyanarayana S o Thillai Natarajan M S Satya Forgings and Agencies v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr T N Satyanarayana S o Thillai Natarajan M S Satya Forgings and Agencies v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natarajan versus Indian Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Mrs Suba Ravikumar versus Axis Bank

Mr Shailendra Kumar Sharma versus Om Kara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

M S Brright Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Cdp Sign Solution Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Jancyrani versus Union Bank of India