Disposed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Aruna Construnctions

DRT10 Aug 2023TA/56/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai disposed of an application filed by Indian Overseas Bank for recovery of dues. The bank invoked SARFESI provisions, sold secured assets, and received full consideration, satisfying the claim. The impugned sale in a separate stay application was dismissed. The Tribunal recorded the satisfaction, disposed the main application out-of-court without costs, and direc

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of as settled out of court without costs. Registry to return title deeds to the applicant.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Aruna Construnctions — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

TA No. 56 of 2023 10.08.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 56 of 2023

¶7

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA No.192 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.56 of 2023)

¶8

Indian Overseas Bank, Cathedral Branch, No.762, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Rep. by its Assistant General Manager Mr.L.Prabakar. ….Applicant

¶9

¶10

M/s.Aruna Constructions, A Partnership Firm Rep. by its Partners, Mrs.A.K. Aruna, Ms.Nisha Purushothaman, Mr.Shaji Purushothaman, Mr.Sheeju Purushothaman and Mr.Sheena Purushothaman Having its Office at Empee Towers, 59 Harris Road, Pudupet, Chennai – 600 002.

¶11

Mrs.A.K.Aruna, W/o.Mr.M.P.Purushothaman, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶12

Mrs.Nisha Purushothaman, D/o.Mr.M.P.Purushothaman, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶13

Mr.Shaji Purushothaman, S/o.Mr.M.P.Purushothaman, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶14

¶15

TA No. 56 of 2023 10.08.2023

¶16

Mr.S.Mr.Sheeju Purushothaman, S/o.Mr.M.P.Purushothaman, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶17

Ms.Sheena Purushothaman, D/o.Mr.M.P.Purushothaman, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶18

M/s.Empee International Hotels & Resorts Ltd., (Formerly Known as Empee Hotels Private Ltd.,) Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Mr.M.P.Purushothaman, Having its Registered Office at: Empee Towers, 59 Harris Road, Pudupet, Chennai – 600 002.

¶19

Mr.M.P.Purushothaman, S/o.Mr.Kumaran, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai -600 008. ….Defendants

¶20

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶21

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.V.Ramachandran.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This OA is filed by applicant bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,00,09,794.50p together with future interest and costs.

¶24

A memo vide SR No.7774/23 dated 22.06.2023 is filed on behalf applicant bank submitting therein that during the pendency of OA, applicant bank had invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act and sold the secured assets for a sum of Rs.36,69,72,000/- to M/s Oasys Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd., who has paid the entire bid

¶25

¶26

TA No. 56 of 2023 10.08.2023

¶27

amount viz., Rs.9,17,43,000/- being 25% on 11.02.2023 and balance 75% of the amount being Rs.27,52,29,000/- on 29.03.2023. On receipt of the entire sale consideration, OA claim of applicant bank stands fully satisfied.

¶28

This case was taken up on 05.07.2023, on which day Ld. counsel for applicant bank submitted that SOC memo has been re-presented before the Registry. However, on verification of memo and records, it was found that applicant bank did not mention about the pendency of SA, preferred by defendants assailing the subject SARFAESI sale. Hence case was adjourned to 26.07.2023 for clarifications. On 26.07.2023, Ld. counsel for applicant bank undertook to file clarification affidavit after serving copies on the other side and matter was posted to today.

¶29

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for applicant bank and perused records. Affidavit of Authorised Officer of respondent bank is filed submitting therein that applicant bank had filed separate memos for recording full satisfaction of OA claim and for return of title deeds. However, due to oversight, pendency of SA No.67/2023 was omitted to be stated in the memos and hence counsel could not be instructed to mention the same in memo and bring it to the notice of Tribunal.

¶30

It is further submitted that in SA No.67/2023, an interim order was passed on 10.03.2023, permitting applicants to deposit the sum of Rs.37 crores or more to the credit of borrower’s loan account towards redemption of property, covering the entire nine documents, mortgaged with the bank by or before 28.03.2023 and on compliance of the same, respondent bank was directed to release the documents by or before

¶31

30.03.2023 and deliver the same to applicant under proper acknowledgment.

¶32

¶33

TA No. 56 of 2023 10.08.2023

¶34

Respondent bank was also permitted to receive the balance auction amount which is in the form of DDs from the auction purchaser but shall not be entitled to encash the same until and upto 29.03.2023 and that in case applicants do not remit the payments as undertaken by them and directed by this Tribunal, respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law by encashing the said DDs and confirm the sale in favour of the auction purchaser on 29.03.2023 instance.

¶35

It is further submitted that as defendants did not comply with the order dated 10.03.2023, respondent bank had proceeded further and encashed the DDs and confirmed the sale in favour of auction purchaser viz., M/s Oasys Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd.

¶36

Thus submitting, Ld. counsel for applicant bank prayed for passing necessary orders recording full satisfaction memo and also prayed for return of documents marked as Ex A-30 to A-46 to applicant bank.

¶37

Connected SA No.67/2023 posted today filed by defendants challenging the subject sale is also taken up, heard both parties, after considering submissions of both parties, SA stood dismissed.

¶38

In the circumstances, full satisfaction memo filed on behalf of applicant bank is taken on record.

¶39

¶40

TA No. 56 of 2023 10.08.2023

¶41

In the result, OA is disposed of as settled out of Court, however without costs. Registry is directed to return original documents marked as Ex A-30 to A-46 to applicant bank under proper acknowledgment as per extant guidelines. All other interlocutory

¶42

applications, if any pending shall stand closed.

¶43

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 10^th day of August, 2023)

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Overseas Bank v. Aruna Construnctions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Aruna Construnctions

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

Revathi versus Repco Home Finance Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Rabs Infra

J Porkodi versus State Bank of India

Aruna Constructions versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus Nishanraj

K Lalitha versus Punjab National Bank