Allowed

K Jaganathan v. Indian Bank

DRT1 Feb 2024SA/157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the SARFAESI application filed by the applicant challenging a sale notice issued by Indian Bank. The court held that the bank failed to establish the procedure for issuing the notice as it did not furnish the notice itself or documents regarding its service/publication in its counter, rendering the notice unenforceable.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 27.02.2023 set aside; Bank directed not to debit sale expenses.

K Jaganathan versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No.157 of 2023

01.02.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 01^st day of February, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.157 of 2023

¶8

Mr. K. Jaganathan S/o. Kannan No.776, B Type MMDA Mathur Chennai-600 068. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs -

¶10

The Authorized Officer Indian Bank, Mannali New Town Branch No.5, Bank Street, Mannali New Town, Chennai-600 103. ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G. Sanjeevi Counsel for Respondent : M/s. P. Britto ORDER

¶11

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 27.02.2023 issued by

¶12

respondent bank scheduling sale to 17.03.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,32,511/-.

¶13

Counsel for applicant is present. No representation on behalf of respondent bank even during second round of call work. Liaison officer or Law officer of respondent bank are also not present.

SA No.157 of 2023

01.02.2024

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant. Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that applicants had complied only the first condition imposed by this Tribunal while moving the present SA and could not comply the second limb of the condition, consequent upon which interim order stood vacated. It is the case of applicant that respondent bank has issued yet another sale notice bringing the schedule property to sale, while was also challenged by applicants and applicants had complied both the conditions there upon and stay is in force. Ld. Counsel for applicant submits that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date and thus the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. It is demonstrated on behalf of applicant that respondent bank has not chosen to file either the service of impugned sale notice nor its affixture nor paper publication of the same in its counter and typed set of documents but had only filed demand notice, MODT, possession notice as well as paper publication dated 14.07.2022 in English and Vernacular, of a purported sale, which obviously did not happen. Ld. Counsel submitted that respondent bank has not furnished any document relating to the impugned sale notice dated 27.02.2023 in their counter and typed set of documents.

¶18

Perused records, including the counter and type set filed on behalf of respondent bank. It is observed that the submissions caused by Ld. Counsel for applicant are true and correct and that respondent has not furnished any documents pertaining to the impugned sale notice. There is neither representation either by the counsel or by the law officer after 01.06.2023.

SA No.157 of 2023

01.02.2024

In the circumstances, as respondent bank could not establish its procedure as warranted under law, while issuing the impugned sale notice, SA is liable to be allowed.

¶23

Accordingly, SA stands allowed, however without costs. Respondent bank is directed not to debit impugned sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this date stands vacated and all other IAs, if any, pending stands closed.

¶24

With the above observations, SA stands disposed.

¶25

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

¶26

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 01^st day of February, 2024)

¶27

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

K Jaganathan v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Jaganathan v. Indian Bank

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

S Ganesh Prabhu versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus AutoTricks Pvt. Ltd. And Four Others

P a Footwear Private Limited versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Kimchi Corner

State Bank of India versus M/S S S Motors Rep by Partners v Selvi

M s Thiru Travel Service versus M s Omkara Assets Reconstruction Company Limited