Dismissed

T Sathianesan v. Canara Bank

DRT3 Oct 2023SA/462/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a secured assets enforcement matter, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's SARFAESI application challenging a Sale Notice. The applicant conceded the notice was legally valid as no procedural infirmities existed but sought time to settle the remaining dues.

What did the court decide?

The Application is dismissed; the applicant is granted three months from 03.10.2023 to 30.11.2023 to approach the bank for settlement of the loan account.

T Sathianesan versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA No.462 of 2023

03.10.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of October, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 462 of 2023

¶9

Sh. T. Sathianesan S/o Thaniel 3^rd Street, Puzhal, Ambattur Taluk Thiruvallur – 600 066 ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer Canara Bank Padianallur (Redhills) Branch No.174, GNT Road, Padiyanallur Thiruvallur – 600 052 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s S. Santosh Counsel for Respondent Bank : Sh. Akshai Mani

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 12.10.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 21.11.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,10,098.18p.

¶16

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that applicant had remitted almost 70% of the outstanding amount and only a sum of Rs.4 lakhs remains to be paid, which the borrower intends to settle within a period of three months. Ld. counsel for applicant fairly conceded that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject

¶17

impugned Sale Notice and prayed for granting time for settlement of loan account.

SA No.462 of 2023

03.10.2023

Ld. counsel for respondent institution submitted that respondent had followed the procedures as contemplated under the Act, which is evidenced through the typed set of documents filed along with counter, copy of which is served to Ld. Counsel for applicant. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that sale did not take place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of conditional order by applicant and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶22

As applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure followed by respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice, this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Accordingly, 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.

¶24

Applicant is at liberty to approach respondent bank and settle the loan account by or before 30.11.2023. Respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if no settlement is arrived and the default of the borrower continues beyond 01.12.2023.

¶25

With the above observations, this SA stand 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 03^rd day of October, 2023)

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

T Sathianesan v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Sathianesan 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

South Indian Bank versus Dhilip Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sri Devi Motors

M s Info Network Management Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Arumugam Son of Balasundaram versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Ri Group

Ganapathy Ram S versus Sundaram Finance Limited