Dismissed

Kbs Manian Bros Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr Devasigamani Vignesh v. Canara Bank

DRT19 Jun 2023SA/496/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Court dismissed the Debt Recovery Tribunal appeal challenging the auction of secured assets by Canara Bank. The Tribunal found no procedural infirmities in the bank's action regarding notice service or sale conduct.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application was dismissed without costs, and all pending interim orders were vacated.

Kbs Manian Bros Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr Devasigamani… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 496 of 2022 19.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 496 of 2022

¶7

1. M/s K B S Manian Bros Pvt Ltd

¶8

Rep.by its Director

¶9

Mr.Devasigamani Vignesh

¶10

No.2, Jaffar Syrang Lane

¶11

Chennai – 600 001

¶12

2. Mr.Devasigamani Vignesh

¶13

No.6, Silver Scheme Apartments 3rd Floor, Scheme Road Mahalingapuram Chennai – 600 034

¶14

… Applicants

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1. The Authorised officer Canara Bank No.4/1, Gandhi Mandapam Salai Kotturpuram

¶17

Chennai – 600 085

¶18

2. Mr.K.Vijayakumar

¶19

No.35, Kennady Street Chennai – 600 113 …Respondents

¶20

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶21

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. D.Durairaj Counsel for 1^st Respondent bank : M/s. Akshai Mani Counsel for 2^nd respondent : None appeared

¶22

¶23

S.A. 496 of 2022 19.06.2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This SA is filed challenging the sale held on 19.11.2022 pursuant to Sale Notice dated 15.10.2022 issued by 1^st respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,81,02,414.69p.

¶26

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶27

It is the case of applicants that there is no service of either the demand notice or the possession notice and that the sale notice scheduling sale to 18.11.2022 was also not served upon the borrowers in a manner known to law. Applicants had approached this Tribunal basing on the paper publication of the impugned sale notice and therefore had approached the Tribunal only after conclusion of the sale. It is the contentions of applicants, that, notwithstanding, the non service of notices as required under law, there was only a sole bidder for the scheduled auction, who is none other than the tenant in the said premises and has knocked away the property at almost 50 percent of its value. Ld.Counsel submits that the property is worth more than Rs.2 crores, while it is sold away only for a sum of Rs.1.05 crores, much to the detriment of applicants herein.

¶28

Ld.Counsel submits that applicant is residing at yet another address, and tenant, staying in the schedule premises, has played fraud upon him and did not intimate about any of the notices issued by the 1^st respondent bank. Ld.Counsel submits that applicants, immediately after knowing that the contemplated sale, is published in newspapers, had approached 1^st respondent bank for an amicable settlement, but 1^st respondent bank was adamant and did not give any opportunity to applicants herein for any negotiated settlement and proceeded further with the sale at a very low reserve

¶29

¶30

S.A. 496 of 2022 19.06.2023

¶31

price and therefore has intentionally caused loss to applicants herein. Ld.Counsel submits that applicants are ready and willing to redeem the mortgage if sufficient time is provided, as the market value is much higher than the price that is sold for. Ld.Counsel also submits that since the procedure adopted by the 1^st respondent bank is not in accordance to law, he prayed for allowing the SA and setting aside the sale in favour of the auction purchaser.

¶32

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent bank has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. It is the case of 1^st respondent bank that demand notice has been served on the 1^st applicant, 2^nd applicant and to the guarantor / wife of the 2^nd applicant by the 1^st respondent bank by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due, while applicants herein are hand delivered with the demand notice. Having received the demand notice, applicants did not cause any repayment to the credit of their loan account, owing to which 1^st respondent bank has issued the possession notice, taking symbolic possession of the property, which was also duly served, affixed and paper publication caused. The served acknowledgements and the returned cover of the possession notice are duly filed as documents along with counter. Ld.Counsel for 1^st respondent bank further submits that the impugned sale notice has been duly served on the borrowers and that it is false to say that they had come only by their knowledge of paper publication and even if that is true they ought to have come in the month of October 2022 instance, since the paper publication is caused on 15.10.2022 while the sale is scheduled to 18.11.2022. Ld.Counsel submits that the reserve price fixed for the property has been duly mentioned in the impugned sale notice, which is thus known to applicants and they did not challenge either the sale notice or the fixation of reserve

¶33

¶34

S.A. 496 of 2022 19.06.2023

¶35

price. The present challenge is only to the concluded sale as if the borrowers has not been intimated or informed, which is absolutely false. 1^st respondent bank has followed all the procedures as warranted under law while issuing the impugned sale notice and

¶36

that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the 1^st respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and therefore there are no merits in the present SA.

¶37

In the result, as applicants could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the 1^st respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice, scheduling sale to 18.11.2022, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

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.

¶39

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶40

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

¶41

guidelines.

¶42

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me through e- drt, on this the 19^th day of June, 2023)

¶43

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Kbs Manian Bros Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr Devasigamani Vignesh v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kbs Manian Bros Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr Devasigamani Vignesh v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ceedeeyes Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd. versus The a O Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Bkr Hotels versus Union Bank of India

Sridevi versus Aptus value housing finance limited

Union Bank of India versus Vinoth Kumar

Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited

Sri Padma balaji Transport versus Canara Bank