Dismissed

S Murugan v. Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited

DRT27 Apr 2023SA/450/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application filed by the applicant challenging recovery measures initiated by the respondent under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, deeming it devoid of merits as no procedural infirmities were established.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI application dismissed without costs; interim orders vacated; other IAs closed.

S Murugan versus Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.450 of 2022 27.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 27^th day of April, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 450 of 2022

¶8

Mr. S. Murugan, S/o.Mr.Sivasubramanian, No.24/35, Karpaga Vinayagar Koil Street, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.

¶9

.….Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Authorised Officer, M/s.Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, (Encore ARC), Caddie Commercial Tower, Regus Business Centre, 5^th Floor, Aerocity (Dial), New Delhi – 110 037.

¶12

Also at: M/s.Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Corporate Office at 5^th Floor, Plot No.137, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. ….Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Sanjeevi. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.R.Sivaraman.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent institution under

¶17

Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CJM Chengalpattu in Crl. M.P. Nos. 6676 of 2022, 6677 of 2022, 6678 of 2022, 6679 of 2022, 6680 of 2022, 6681 of 2022, 6682 of 2022 & 6683 of 2022 dated 29.07.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,28,47,455/-.

¶18

¶19

S.A.450 of 2022 27.04.2023

¶20

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for respective parties. Ld. counsel for applicant fairly conceded that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while initiating measures under Section 14 of the Act and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶21

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Accordingly, SA stands 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.

¶23

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶24

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

¶25

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 27^th day of April, 2023)

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶28

PRESIDING OFFICER

S Murugan v. Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Murugan v. Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private 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

M s Kriti Inter Trade versus Canara Bank

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S.Fortune Mix India Pvt. Ltd.

Premier Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. versus Dbs Bank Limited

S Dhanasekar versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Dulesierni Lionel versus Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.

Mr R Ravichandren son of R Ramasamy versus Karur Vysya Bank