Dismissed

Ms Ampel v. Bank of Baroda

DRT22 Sept 2023SA/675/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT dismissed the application seeking to set aside a public auction sale of immovable property. The court held that the respondent followed the statutory procedure, evidenced by proper service and publication of notices, and barred the applicant from challenging the low reserve price due to non-prosecution of the earlier SA against the possession notice. The sale certificate was issued only f

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; pending immediate applications closed; no order as to costs.

Ms Ampel versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No.675 of 2022

¶6

M/s Ampel Rep. by its Partner, Mr. Pullumirah Mazhar No.1, Perianna Maistry Street Periamet, Chennai – 600 003

¶7

Mr. Pullumirah Mazhar S/o P. Athullah No.1, Perianna Maistry Street Periamet, Chennai – 600 003 …Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Authorized Officer Bank of Baroda Regional Stressed Asset Recovery Branch Chennai Metro Region, 1^st Floor, No.10, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet Chennai – 600 003

¶10

M/s Hanisha Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. D. Karthick No.24, Vinayakar Koil Street, 2^nd Street Chinnavarikkam Village Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore – 600 007 …Respondents Counsel for Applicants : Mr. D. Durairaj Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s K. Radhakrishnamurthy Counsel for 2^nd Respondent : M/s S.R. Sudhanraj & G. Sanjeevi

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This Securitization Application in short SA is filed under section 17of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), herein after been referred as SARFAESI Act or the Act as the case be, with a prayer to set aside the public auction sale held on 18.10.2022 pursuant to the sale notice dated 18.9.2022.

¶13

¶14

The case of the applicant is that they had approached the respondent and got sanctioned a credit facility Rs.80,00,000/- which got disbursed in lieu of the security of the immovable properties. It is further alleged by the applicant that the respondent had without intimating the applicant had unilaterally raised the interest.

¶15

The applicant is also admitting the defaults occurred in the account. However in respect of the measures it is the case of the applicant that the measures are taken in a high handed way and in an unlawful manner, without application of mind. It is also admitted that, the applicant though had filed SA 131 of 2020 impugning the possession notice, the same stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶16

It is also contended that the respondent had issued the sale notice dated 16.9.2022 and had conducted the auction on 18.10.2022. It is stated that the sale notice was not served on the borrowers and applicant came to know about the same from the sale notice as published in newspapers.

¶17

In respect of the sale, it is contented that the reserve prices is too low as the same property was put to auction with a reserve price of Rs.2,80,00,000/-and for the impugned sale, the same had been fixed at Rs. 48,95,000/-. The applicant further alleges that the sale notice is not affixed as required under the statute.

¶18

The 1^st respondent had filed their counter denying the averments of the applicant. It is contented that only as the applicant had committed default in repayment, the loan account was declared as NPA. In respect of measures, it is the case of the respondent that they had followed the procedure and there

¶19

¶20

is no infirmity in any of the measures. The contention of the applicant as to the alleged under valuation is also denied by the respondent.

¶21

The 1^st respondent had also produced the following documents viz., MODT, Sale deed in favour of applicant, Confirmation extending mortgage, Demand notice and acknowledgment cards, Possession notice and acknowledgment cards. Photographs evidencing affixture, Paper publication of possession notice, Letter by the applicant requesting time, Valuation report dated 7.01.2020, Sale notice dated 10.1.2020 and acknowledgment card, Sale notice dated 20.2.2020 with acknowledgment cards, Paper publication of sale notice, Valuation report dated 6.9.2022, Sale notice dated 16.9.2022 along with acknowledgment cards, Paper publication of sale notice, Sale confirmation, Notice of completion of sale to the 1^st applicant, Reply by the respondent counsel, Request by auction purchaser, Letter allowing extension of time, Sale certificate, Valuation report as to the classification of extent of the property and statement of accounts.

¶22

The 2^nd respondent, the auction purchaser, had filed their counter supporting the contentions of the 1^st respondent and further contenting that the applicant does not have any cause of action in initiating the measures.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for all the sides and considered the rival contentions in the light of pleadings as raised by them and also the documents submitted in support of the pleadings. The only issue that is to be gone into as to the whether the 1^st respondent had followed the procedure as required by law in their measures leading to the conduct of sale and issuance of sale notice leading to it.

¶24

¶25

The applicant had taken almost all the contentions are could think of right from contenting as to the flawed procedure in issuance of demand notice. The 1^st respondent had along with their typeset had produced the proof of issuance and service of the demand notice. Similarly the proof as to the issuances affixture and publication of the possession notice is also produced by the 1^st respondent. Hence by production of the above documents the 1^st respondent had successfully rebutted the contention as to non issuance and service of demand notice and possession notice. Even otherwise the SA filed by the applicant impugning the possession notice is already dismissed for non- prosecution.

¶26

The 1^st respondent had also produced the valuation procured before issuance of the sale notice. The proof of services affixture and publication of the sale notice, which evidenced the due compliance of the statutory provisions of the statute.

¶27

Another important aspect which is to be considered is that, even after being served with the sale notice dated 18.9.2022, the applicant had not challenged the same. Having allowed the sale to go through being issued with the sale notice the applicant is precluded from challenging the sale conducted pursuant to the sale notice contending that the reserve price fixed as per the sale notice is low.

¶28

The next contention of the applicant is, as to the total extent of the property sold. The applicant tried to put forth a contention that the total extent of property available is one acre and 47 cents and by virtue of the sale certificate the entire property is transferred. It cannot be correct in view of the fact sale

¶29

¶30

certificate is issued only in respect of Hector 0.02.02 ares, hector 0.14.5 ares of land equalling 35.824 cents of land. If at all applicants have any contention that excess property is taken possession by the respondent, it is for them approach appropriate authority/court resumption of possession. The clarification issued by the approved valuer also disproves the said contention of the applicant..

¶31

No other contention is taken by the applicant to be decided by this Tribunal.

¶32

Hence on the basis of above discussions and finding as entered there in it could be safely concluded that there is no merit in any of the contention taken by the applicant and hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

In the result SA stands dismissed, all pending IA’s stands closed, no orders as to cost. Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993.

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22^nd day of September, 2023)

¶35

Sd/(T. RAJESH ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶36

Ms Ampel v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ampel v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs S Saroja versus State Bank of India

S Paldurai versus Canara Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s.Sun Traders

A C Velmurugan versus City Union Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. v. Ammani

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Panneerselvam