Dismissed

M s Sri Ganapathi Enterprises v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT26 Jun 2023SA/498/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a bank's auction sale of secured assets. The Tribunal held that the applicant filed the challenge belatedly after the sale concluded, failed to redeem the property or demonstrate bona fides, and lacked diligence in prosecuting the matter, thus failing to make out any infirmities in the procedure. The application was dismissed without

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; interim order (if any) stands vacated; other pending IAs stand closed.

M s Sri Ganapathi Enterprises versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.498 of 2022 26.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 498 of 2022

¶8

M/s.Sri Ganapathi Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix Mrs.Lalitha, W/o.Mr.M.Kumar, 48/9, Welcome Colony, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai – 600 101.

¶9

Mr.M.Kumar, S/o.Mr.Muthiah, 48/9, Welcome Colony, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai – 600 101. ….Applicants Vs.

¶10

M/s.Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., No.57, V.E.Road, Thoothukudi and Branch office at: Door No.46/87, 1^st Floor, Plot No.1, Gayathri Nagar, Hasthinapuram, Chitlipakkam, Chennai – 600 064. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.T.Mathi. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.K.N.Chinnakrishnan.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the sale held on 11.11.2022 pursuant to Sale Notice dated 10.10.2022 issued by respondent bank, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,02,25,000/-

¶15

¶16

S.A.498 of 2022 26.06.2023

¶17

This SA was moved on 07.12.2022 by applicant, much after the conclusion of sale. A memo dated 05.12.2022 was filed on behalf of applicant submitting therein that they are ready and willing to deposit 20% of the outstanding amount and prayed for interim stay from this Tribunal.

¶18

As date of sale was already over, notice was ordered to respondent bank, who entered appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act right from issuance of Demand Notice, Possession Notice and E-Auction Sale Notice.

¶19

Thereafter, continuously there was no representation on behalf of applicant. Applicant neither proved his bonafides nor prosecuted the matter diligently.

¶20

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for respondent bank and perused records.

¶21

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that this is the 13^th sale notice issued by respondent bank and had detailed about the earlier sale notices in their counter. Sale notice was duly served, affixed and published in two newspapers as mandated under law. Respondent bank had obtained two valuation reports dated 02.02.2022 and 07.02.2022 and fixed the reserve price strictly in accordance to the same. It is submitted by respondent bank that secured asset is sold to highest bidder in the auction held on 11.11.2022 pursuant to sale notice dated 10.10.2022, for a sum of Rs.1,02,25,000/- and purchaser had remitted 25% of the bid amount on 14.11.2022 and for payment of balance 75% of the amount, purchaser had requested for extension of time, which was accordingly considered in accordance to law and accepted by

¶22

¶23

S.A.498 of 2022 26.06.2023

¶24

respondent bank. Auction purchaser had remitted the balance amount on 12.12.2022 and sale certificate was issued on 13.12.2022, which was duly registered as Doc No.10337/22 before SRO, Villivakkam on 15.12.2202. It is further submitted that auction purchaser is also handed over physical possession of the property. The sale proceeds were credited to the borrower’s loan account on 12.12.2202 and after adjusting the same, a sum of Rs.21,55,715.92p is outstanding as on 03.01.2023.

¶25

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that respondent bank had followed the procedures as contemplated under the Act, which is evidenced through the typed set of documents filed along with counter, copies of which are already served to Ld. counsel for applicant and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶26

Applicant, despite receipt of Sale Notice within time from respondent bank, did not choose to redeem the property but however was watching over the fence and after the sale is over, had preferred this SA challenging the sale held to stall the recovery process of respondent bank. Even after approaching this Tribunal, despite filing undertaking memo, applicant did not choose to cause any payments towards extinguishing their debt.

¶27

As there are no bonafides on the part of applicant nor applicant could make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent bank while bringing the property to sale nor conducted the matter diligently , this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

¶29

S.A.498 of 2022 26.06.2023

¶30

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.

¶31

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

guidelines.

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 26^th day of June, 2023)

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

M s Sri Ganapathi Enterprises v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M s Sri Ganapathi Enterprises v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

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

B Suresh versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Usha Shanthini versus Indian Bank

Indian Bank versus Gandhinathan

S Jayaraman S O Samban versus Idbi Bank

Imaanuvel Jeyaprabhu versus Axis Bank

Ms Nataraja Agencies versus The A.O. Reliance Commercial Finance Limited