Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

M Muthukumaran versus Karur Vysya Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

Home
DRT
2023
M Muthukumaran versus Karur Vysya BankM Muthukumaran v. Karur Vysya Bank

Dismissed

M Muthukumaran v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT30 Nov 2023SA/499/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SA under SARFAESI Act challenging sale notice dismissed as infructuous since no sale occurred due to lack of bidders.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; interim order vacated.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

1

SA No.499 of 2023

30.11.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2023

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

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 499 of 2023

Mr. M. Muthukumaran, S/o. Mr. Murugaiya Gounder, No.1, 1^st Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Ambedkar Street, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091. ….Applicant

-Vs-

The Authorized Officer, Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Asset Recovery Branch, No.1, Padmavathiyar Road, 2^nd Floor, Off Peters Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. ….Respondent

Counsels on record / appeared:

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. G. Sanjeevi Counsel for Respondent : M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Murugaiya Gounder
respondent
Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.

Coram

AI extract

Ganapathi K.R.K.

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: DRT
Decided on: 30 Nov 2023 · November
Case no.: SA/499/2023
CNR: 330330048472023

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ganapati Krk

R Palani versus Axis Bank
29 Nov 2023
City Union Bank Limited versus Ayyappan
29 Nov 2023
State Bank of India versus Kannan
29 Nov 2023
Chandra Mohan Mr versus Bank of Baroda
30 Nov 2023
Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S True Value Homes (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Cite this judgement

M Muthukumaran v. Karur Vysya Bank, SA/499/2023 (DRT), decided on 30 November 2023.

The Debt Recovery Tribunals publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

Ganapathi K.R.K.

Parties & counsel

Outcome

SA dismissed without costs; interim order vacated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI application dismissed for being infructuous as the scheduled sale did not take place due to absence of bidders, with no prima facie infirmities in the sale notice.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

ORDER

This SA is filed challenging the sale notice dated 07.09.2023 issued by respondent bank, scheduling the sale to 30.09.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,16,603.67p.

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for respective parties. Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that applicant could not comply with the conditional order imposed by this Tribunal at the time of seeking interim order and further submitted that sale did not take place on the scheduled date. Thus submitting, Ld. Counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

2

SA No.499 of 2023

30.11.2023

Ld. counsel for respondent bank demonstrated through counter and typed set of documents, copy of which is served to Ld. Counsel for applicant, that respondent bank had followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act and that present SA has become infructuous as no sale could be held on the schedule date for want of bidders.

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.

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.

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

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

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

Topic

Banking and Recovery

Bench

30 Nov 2023

South Indian Bank versus Palanivel Raj

30 Nov 2023