Dismissed

Kupps and Sachs Pte Ltd. v. Bank of India

DRT30 Mar 2023SA/467/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a sale notice issued by the Bank of India for recovery of dues, alleging unclear property description. The Tribunal held that parties entered a settlement agreement and no sale occurred on the scheduled date, rendering the notice infructuous. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The sale notice was held infructuous; application stood dismissed without costs. Interim orders were vacated.

Kupps and Sachs Pte Ltd. versus Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA No.467/2022 30.03.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 467 of 2022

¶8

M/s.Kupps & Sachs Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.K.Selvaraj, No.14, Robinson Road, # 11-01 Far East Finance Building, Singapore – 048 55. 2. Mr.K.Selvaraj, S/o.P.Kupppusamy, No.143, 4^th Main Road, Balamurugan Gardens, Rajiv Gandhi Road (OMR), Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. ….Applicants Versus 1. The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Bank of India, Chennai Overseas Branch, Star House, 3^rd Floor, No.30, (Old No.17) Errabalu Street, Chennai – 600 001. 2. The Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Executive, Singapore Branch, No.158, Cecil Street, #-01-01, #02-01, #09-01, Singapore – 069 545. ....Respondents

¶9

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Waraon & Sai Rams. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.S.R.Sudhanraj.

¶11

¶12

SA No.467/2022 30.03.2023

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 18.10.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 25.11.2022 for recovery of USD 8,26,782.71 as on 22.06.2022 (Rs.6,77,81,713.52p INR).

¶15

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

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶17

It is the case of applicants that they are approaching the respondent bank for an amicable settlement of their loan dues and that they had already arrived at a mutually acceptable amount to be discharged by applicants to the respondent bank. Further the modalities of payments are being discussed. Ld. counsel for applicant submits that the description of the property in the sale notice is not clear in as much as, the extent of the property is not described and therefore the impugned sale notice suffers from the said infirmity. Submitting so, Ld. counsel prayed for appropriate orders in the SA.

¶18

Whereas Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that it is correct and true that applicants and respondent bank have entered into a negotiated settlement after taking into consideration the amount of Rs.65 Lakhs deposited by applicants in two tranches in compliance of the interim condition in part, imposed by this Tribunal. Ld. counsel has submitted that, in view of the compliance of interim condition, no sale has taken place and that the impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶19

Ld. counsel for respondent bank relied on the counter and typed set of documents filed on behalf of respondent bank to evidence their actions and submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted while issuing the impugned sale

¶20

¶21

SA No.467/2022 30.03.2023

¶22

notice. Ld. counsel submits that the description of the property is as per their records in the mortgage deed executed by the borrower and undertakes that if there are any corrections and additions to the same, it will be taken care of in subsequent eventual actions if required to do so. Submitting so, Ld. counsel prayed for appropriate orders.

¶23

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and even otherwise as parties have rescinded to amicable settlement between themselves and also in view that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date, the present sale notice has become infructuous and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

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.

¶25

Parties will be at liberty to enter into negotiated settlement in terms of their undertaking before the Bench.

¶26

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶27

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

¶28

guidelines.

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 30^th day of March, 2023)

¶30

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶31

PRESIDING OFFICER

Kupps and Sachs Pte Ltd. v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kupps and Sachs Pte Ltd. v. Bank of India

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

R Dhanalakshmi versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Mr N Senthil Kumar versus M s Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Mr G Subramani versus Canara Bank

Suganthi Educational Trust versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

M s Casuarina Bay versus Canara Bank

Sri Laxmi Timbers Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India