Dismissed

V Tamilselvan v. Union Bank of India

DRT12 Apr 2023SA/57/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application challenging an e-auction sale notice as it had become infructuous due to lack of bidders, while granting liberty to parties to contest the mortgage validity later. Interim orders vacated and pending IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI application dismissed without costs; liberty granted to parties to agitate mortgage validity; interim orders vacated; pending IAs closed.

V Tamilselvan versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.57 of 2022 12.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 57 of 2022

¶8

Mr.V.Tamil Selvan, S/o.Shri.M.S.Veerapan, Door No.151, Vandikara Street, Sitharkadu, Mayiladuthurai – 609 003. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, Moovalur Branch, Door No.1/16, K.M.Nagar, Moovalur, Mayiladuthurai – 609 003. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.G.Sanjeevi. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.P.Veeraraghavan.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 24.01.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling E-Auction on 17.02.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,18,261/-.

¶15

Respondent bank had entered appearance and filed their counter and typed set

¶16

of documents evidencing the action taken by them.

¶17

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶18

¶19

S.A.57 of 2022 12.04.2023

¶20

This is a challenge made to the impugned sale notice dated 24.01.2022 scheduling sale to 17.02.2022. Both parties admit that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶21

Ld. counsel for applicant also vehemently contended before this Tribunal that the very mortgage created by the applicant and being claimed by the respondent bank is defective and hence not acceptable, while respondent bank submits that its mortgage is valid and it is well within its right to invoke SARFAESI action against the defaulting borrowers.

¶22

Ld. counsel for applicant also submitted that applicant intend to negotiate with respondent bank for an amicable settlement.

¶23

Notwithstanding the rival contentions with regard to the validity of mortgage or otherwise and with liberty for both the parties to agitate on the said issue at any future eventuality, since the very sale notice impugned herein has become infructuous, present SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Liberty be with parties to agitate their respective contentions, if required to. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶25

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶26

¶27

S.A.57 of 2022 12.04.2023

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 12^th day of April, 2023)

¶30

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

V Tamilselvan v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Tamilselvan v. Union 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

Kathiravan versus M s Icici Home Finance Ltd.

T Udayakumar versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Prasammamasakthi Sawmill versus Indian Bank

M Kanakavalli versus Canara Bank

Renuka Devi versus Repco Bank

K Palani versus Indian Overseas Bank