Allowed

M S Kamaraj S O Srinivasan v. State Bank of India

DRT6 Jul 2023SA/558/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed this SARFAESI application as the respondent bank failed to appear or file counter. The prior sale notice dated 01.12.2022 was set aside, and the bank was directed not to debit sale notice expenses to the borrower's account due to lack of representation.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 01.12.2022 set aside; direction not to debit sale notice expenses to borrower's account.

M S Kamaraj S O Srinivasan versus State Bank of India — Arbitration | DRT (2023)

S.A No.558 of 2022

06.07.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 06^th day of July, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 558 of 2022

¶9

M.S. Kamaraj, S/o Srinivasan, No. 6/2, Krishnan Street, Govardhanagiri, Avadi, Chennai – 600 071.

¶10

….Applicant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Authorised Officer Centralised Retail Asset Monitoring Cell (CRAMC) State Bank of India Local Head Office, 3^rd Floor, No. 16, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

….Respondent

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G.Jeremiah

¶16

None for respondent bank

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 01.12.2022 issued by

¶19

respondent bank scheduling sale to 09.01.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,05,784/-.

¶20

Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of interim condition imposed by this Tribunal.

S.A No.558 of 2022

06.07.2023

There is no representation on behalf of respondent bank even during second round of call work, despite receipt of notice from this Tribunal. As the matter is posted today as last chance for filing counter and typed set of documents and appearance of respondent, for want of representation, SA stands allowed. Consequently, Sale Notice dated 01.12.2022 is hereby set aside. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account for not establishing its vires despite receipt of notices.

¶25

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed. However, liberty be with respondent bank to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶26

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

¶27

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 06^th day of July, 2023)

¶28

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

M S Kamaraj S O Srinivasan v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Kamaraj S O Srinivasan v. State 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

Union Bank of India versus Nag Leathers Pvt. Ltd. Rep By Mr G Ramachandran And Five Others

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Aat Academy India Ltd. And Others

Mr v Sathyanarayanan versus Union Bank of India

United Bank of India versus M/S Sri Lalkamal Enterprises

M s Ariff And Co. versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Nag Yang Shoes Pvt.Ltd