Dismissed

Mr R Ravichandren son of R Ramasamy v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT27 Apr 2023SA/57/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application challenging a Sale Notice issued by the bank. Finding no infirmities in the notice and the sale having become infructuous, the Tribunal dismissed the application without costs but granted 30 days for negotiated settlement.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs. Liberty granted to settle loan account by 31.05.2023.

Mr R Ravichandren son of R Ramasamy versus Karur Vysya Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.57 of 2023 27.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 27^th day of April, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 57 of 2023

¶8

Mr.R.Ravichandran, S/o.R.Ramasamy, No.11/6, Muthurangan Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

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

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.D.Durairaj. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.R.Umasuthan.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 12.01.2023 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 04.02.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,32,99,625.14p

¶15

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for respective parties and perused records.

¶16

Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that parties are approaching respondent bank for a negotiated settlement and prays time.

¶17

¶18

S.A.57 of 2023 27.04.2023

¶19

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank had demonstrated the actions of respondent bank through their counter and typed set of documents and submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice and that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders. As such this SA has become infructuous. Thus submitting, Ld. Counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶20

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank, while issuing the impugned sale notice, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

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.

¶22

Applicants are at liberty to approach respondent bank and settle the loan account

¶23

by or before 31.05.2023, failing which respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues beyond 31.05.2023.

¶24

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶25

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

¶26

guidelines.

¶27

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 27^th day of April, 2023)

¶28

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

Mr R Ravichandren son of R Ramasamy v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr R Ravichandren son of R Ramasamy v. Karur Vysya Bank

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

M s Kriti Inter Trade versus Canara Bank

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S.Fortune Mix India Pvt. Ltd.

Premier Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. versus Dbs Bank Limited

S Dhanasekar versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Dulesierni Lionel versus Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.

Devi Kumaravelu W o Kumaravelu Kanthasamy versus Icici Bank Limited