Disposed

Uma Pachiyappan v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

DRT4 Sept 2023SA/70/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Sarfari application challenging a sale notice, the applicants settled their loan account and requested withdrawal of the petition. The debt recovery tribunal disposed of the application as settled out of court without specifying costs, vacating any interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of as settled out of court without costs; interim orders vacated; pending IAs closed.

Uma Pachiyappan versus Housing Development Finance Corporation… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 70 of 2023 04.09.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 04^th day of September, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 70 of 2023

¶7

1. Mrs.Uma Pachiyappan W/o.Pachiyappan No.29A, Sakthi Illam Thirughnanasambander Street Jagadambigai Nagar Chennai – 600 050

¶8

2. Mr.Pachiyappan S/o.Sengaravel No.29A, Sakthi Illam Thirughnanasambander Street Jagadambigai Nagar Chennai – 600 050 ….Applicants Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer

¶10

M/s Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd Second Floor, ITC Centre 760, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. S.Anuradha Balaji Counsel for Respondent : M/s. K.J.Parthasarathy

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the sale notice dated 09.01.2023 scheduling sale to 15.02.2023 issued by respondent financial institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,75,71,119/-.

¶15

¶16

S.A. 70 of 2023 04.09.2023

¶17

A memo vide SR.No.11925/2023 is filed on behalf of applicants, after serving copy of the same on the other side submitting therein that during the pendency of the SA, applicants had approached respondent financial institution and settled their loan account. However, since respondent financial institution stated that the original documents can be returned and the mortgage can be discharged only on withdrawal of the present SA, applicants may be permitted to withdraw the same as settled out of court. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for passing appropriate orders.

¶18

Perused. Memo is taken on record.

¶19

In the result, this SA is disposed of as settled out of Court, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶20

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed

¶21

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

¶22

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through e-drt, on this the 04^th day of September, 2023)

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶25

PRESIDING OFFICER

Uma Pachiyappan v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Pachiyappan v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uco Bank versus M s Selva Furniture Prop Mrs D Kalpana Patel

Uco Bank versus The Star Cars Private Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Yesbal Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Bhawarlal Heerachand versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Sudersan

Mrs Uma Pachiyappan versus The a O M s Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited