Dismissed

Mrs S Rajeswari v. Union Bank of India

DRT3 Oct 2023SA/464/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a second sale notice dated 28.10.2022 for recovering a sum. The applicant contended the sale date, 18 days later, violated the 30-day statutory requirement. The court held the notice was a second attempt requiring no 30-day gap. As the sale was infructuous, the petition was dismissed. No sale took place.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application stands dismissed without costs. The interim order granted to the applicant and subsistent is vacated.

Mrs S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA No. 464 of 2022

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. 464 of 2022

¶9

Mrs.S.Rajeswari W/o C.P.Sudharson No.22, Suriyamman Koil Street V.O.C. Nagar Pammal Chennai – 600 075 …. Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch “Elconso Building” No.9, Casa Major Road Egmore Chennai – 600 008 …. Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G.V.Shridharan & G.Sanjeevi Counsel for Respondent : M/s. K.Radhakrishnamurthy

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 28.10.2022 scheduling sale to 18.11.2022 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,95,976.15p from applicant.

¶16

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

SA No. 464 of 2022

03.10.2023

It is the case of applicant that there is no clear 30 days as warranted under law from the date of issuance of the impugned sale notice to the date of scheduled sale. Ld.Counsel for applicant has demonstrated the same from the postal covers that were served on the borrowers and with scheduled date of sale, which is obviously less than 30 days. Ld.Counsel submits that but for the above infirmity, respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law and since there are only 18 days between the service of sale notice and the scheduled date of sale, it is submitted that the procedure adopted by the respondent bank as secured creditor while issuing the impugned sale notice is not in accordance to law.

¶21

Whereas Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent bank has filed its counter and typed set of documents evidencing its actions. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank has demonstrated their actions and submitted that there was 18 clear days of time between the service of notice and the date of sale and that the present impugned sale notice is a 2^nd sale notice, which is therefore valid in the eyes of law and the allegation that there are no 30 days between the service of sale notice and the date of scheduled sale is not applicable for the present case, since the impugned sale notice is a 2^nd sale notice. Ld.Counsel further submitted that respondent bank could furnish the details of the 1^st sale notice to establish that the same is in accordance to law and therefore the present impugned sale notice has to be treated as a 2^nd sale notice only, while maintaining that the 1^st sale notice has not been challenged by the applicant. Ld.Counsel took time for filing details of the 1^st sale notice to prove that the present impugned sale notice is 2^nd sale notice. Today Ld.Counsel for respondent bank has filed details of the 1^st sale notice, after serving copies on the other side and submitted that the impugned notice is

SA No. 464 of 2022

03.10.2023

the 2^nd sale notice for which there need not be 30 days as is being claimed by applicant herein.

¶26

Ld.Counsel for applicant submitted that except for the above alleged infirmity of 30 days, there is no other ground for the applicant to challenge the impugned sale notice. Both the Ld.Counsels conceded that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶27

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice dated 28.10.2022 scheduling sale to 18.11.2022, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

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.

¶29

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶30

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

¶31

guidelines.

¶32

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 03^rd day of October, 2023)

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mrs S Rajeswari v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs S Rajeswari v. Union Bank of India

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

T Sathianesan versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Ri Group