Dismissed

Sri Kailash Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India

DRT14 Jul 2023SA/74/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This SARFAESI application challenging a bank's sale notice was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the bank followed the law, noting buyers evaded notice delivery. Since no sale occurred due to lack of bidders rendering the notice infructuous, the application dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs; interim orders vacated; pending IAs closed.

Sri Kailash Traders Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 74 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 74 of 2023

¶7

1. M/s Sri Kailash Traders Pvt Ltd

¶8

Rep.by its Managing Director

¶9

Mr.Narashia M Patel No.42/2,East Coast Road, (100 Ft. Road) Near R.T.O., Mudaliarpet Puducherry – 605 004

¶10

2. Mr.N.Dinesh N Patel S/o. Narashia Patel No.7, Santhani Street Kosapalayam Puducherry – 605 013 … Applicants Vs. The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch No.38 &39, Whites Road Royapettah Chennai – 600 014 … Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicants : M/s. J.Prince Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A.Jaishankar

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 07.01.2023 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 25.01.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.81,43,81,377.90p from applicants.

¶13

¶14

S.A. 74 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶15

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶16

It is the case of applicants that respondent bank has not followed the procedure while initiating SARFAESI actions and has not served the demand notice in a manner known to law. It is the further case of applicants that the impugned sale notice is not served within time and is served only on 11.01.2023, while the sale is scheduled to 25.01.2023, whereby even the statutory 15 days notice is not caused upon applicants / borrowers. Ld.Counsel further submitted that the valuation of the property is not obtained as per the current prevailing rates and that the property has been valued low. It is also submitted that since respondent bank has not followed the procedure as warranted under law, the impugned sale notice is liable to be set aside and SA to be allowed.

¶17

Whereas Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent bank had filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submits that the impugned sale notice is dated 07.01.2023 and has been duly despatched on 08.01.2023 and as per the postal track record filed along with the counter, it is evident that on 09.01.2023 itself, it is out for delivery and respondents are all family members related interse and hence, all wilfully evaded receipt of the notice till 11.01.2023. Ld.Counsel submits that paper publication and affixture are duly caused much earlier and therefore applicants are very well aware of the actions of the respondent bank and cannot now take a different stand stating that there is no clear 15 days notice. Even otherwise, Ld.Counsel, submits that, as applicants did not contemplate to exercise their right of redemption, they cannot take a stand that there is

¶18

¶19

S.A. 74 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶20

not enough time for them to redeem the property. Such a plea would be applicable only if applicants attempt / contemplate to redeem the property and not otherwise. Whereas in the present case, applicants did not even comply with any interim order even after moving the SA and therefore there are no bonafides in the submissions made on behalf of applicants with regard to non - availability of clear 15 days from the date of service of sale notice to the date of scheduled sale. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel had demonstrated the further actions of the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and submitted that there is no violation on the part of respondent bank and that the valuation is in accordance to the prevailing rates only, but however will obtain fresh valuation in a situation where respondent bank has to initiate fresh SARFAESI actions.

¶21

Both the counsels concede that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶22

From the foregone submissions of both the parties, it is evident that respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law. Their contention that there is no statutory 15 days period between the service of sale notice and the date of sale has little relevance, since it is also contended that applicants did not exercise or contemplate to exercise their right of redemption within the said period. Therefore, the contentions on behalf of applicants that there is no clear 15 days time, is only a stooge to deter the lawful actions of respondent bank in the course of their recovery and there are no bonafides in the same, since applicants are still continuing their default even after approaching this Tribunal and did not cause any payments to prove their bonafides. As respondent bank had established their procedure as warranted under law

¶23

¶24

S.A. 74 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶25

and Ld.Counsel has also submitted that fresh valuation will be obtained in the course of

¶26

an eventuality of continuing their SARFAESI actions, there are no tenable merits.

¶27

In the result as applicants could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

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.

¶29

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me through e- drt, on this the 14^th day of June, 2023)

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sri Kailash Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kailash Traders Pvt. Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Tamil Prasanth and T Lalitha versus Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

Senthilvel Selvam versus Union Bank of India

Mrs a Dheepa versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Balasubramanian

Sankar Subramani versus The Authourised Officer Ms Idfc First Bank Limited

Rajesh Balaguru Moorthy versus Hdfc Bank