Dismissed

Sampath Kumar v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT4 Jan 2024SA/180/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the applicant challenged an E-Auction Sale Notice issued by the bank for recovery of dues. While claiming procedural defects, the court found the bank's procedure, including notices, to be in accordance with the law. Consequently, the application was dismissed as the applicant could not establish any infirmity.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application No. 180 of 2023 is dismissed without costs.

Sampath Kumar versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No.180 of 2023

04.01.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of January, 2024

¶6

Present: ShriGanapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.180 of 2023

¶8

Mr. Sampath Kumar Prop. Senthil & Co. Flat No.5, Glory Enclaves, 2^nd Floor Door No.45 & 46, New Door No.71 T H Road, Kaladipet Chennai – 600 019

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank T V Market Branch No.189, T H Road, Thiruvottiyur Market Chennai – 600 019 .…Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s Balaji Counsel for Respondent Bank : Sh. Kvp. Deepak Raj

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 24.02.2023 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 29.03.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,18,949/-.

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for respective parties.

¶17

It is the case of applicant that he availed Cash Credit facility to the tune of Rs.17 Lakhs from respondent bank for his business purpose and offered his immovable property as security. It is submitted that though applicant was regular in repayment without any default, due to Pandemic Covid – 19, applicant suffered loss in business and committed default in repayment due to loss of income, thus resulting

SA No.180 of 2023

04.01.2024

in initiation of recovery measures by respondent bank. It is the case of applicant that subsequent to issuance of demand notice and possession notice by respondent bank, applicant had thus far paid a sum of Rs.12,34,800/- up to 08.02.2023. However, respondent bank without considering the payments made had issued the subject impugned sale notice scheduling sale to 29.03.2023.

¶22

Applicant had raised the following grounds in the SA:

¶23

(i) Demand Notice dated 02.07.2020 is not served to guarantor;

¶24

(ii) Respondent bank failed to affix and publish the Possession Notice dated 25.08.2021 as mandated under the Act;

¶25

(iii) Respondent failed to give clear 30 days notice as mandated under law. (iv) Amount mentioned in the subject impugned Sale Notice is incorrect;

¶26

(v) Respondent bank without obtaining fresh valuation had fixed the reserve price.

¶27

Whereas respondent bank had put up appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld. counsel appearing for respondent bank submitted that as borrower committed default in repayment of dues, respondent had classified the loan accounts as NPA on 31.12.2019 and issued Demand Notice dated 20.07.2020, which are duly served to all parties (borrower and guarantor), as evidenced from acknowledgment cards filed along with typed set of documents. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that despite receipt of Demand Notice, as borrowers did not come forward to repay the dues, respondent proceeded further and took symbolic possession on 25.08.2021 and Possession Notice was duly served to all parties, affixed at the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published in two newspapers as evidenced from the typed set

SA No.180 of 2023

04.01.2024

of documents filed along with counter. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that as the default of the borrower continued, Sale Notice dated 24.02.2023 was issued scheduling sale to 29.03.2023. Sale notice was duly served to borrower and guarantor on 28.02.2023, affixed on the secured asset on the same day and published in ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’ on 25.02.2023. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent while issuing the subject impugned Sale Notice and that the sale notice has become infructuous as no sale had taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders. Thus submitting, Ld. Counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶32

From the foregone submissions of both parties, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice, this SA is liable to be dismissed. Further, respondent bank had established its procedure while issuing the impugned Possession Notice, which are found to be in accordance to law.

¶33

In the result, 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.

¶34

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in open Court on this the 04^th day of January, 2024)

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sampath Kumar v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampath Kumar v. Indian Overseas 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

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Janata Timber and Saw Mill

Venkatesan Gangadharan versus Union Bank of India

Mrs S Punitha versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Prime Infotech

Yesu Gurusamy versus Hdfc Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Rm Enterprises