Dismissed

S Nanda Kumar v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT5 Mar 2024SA/218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Satisfaction Application filed by a loan borrower challenging a sale notice. The court found no infirmities in the bank's procedure and held the sale notice was not the cause of action for dismissal since no sale occurred due to interim compliance.

What did the court decide?

The satisfaction application is dismissed without costs; interim orders, if any, are vacated.

S Nanda Kumar versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

SA No. 218 of 2023

05.03.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 5^th day of march, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 218 of 2023

¶8

S. Nanda Kumar, S/o. Shanmugam Residing at No. 16 A, Second Street, Ramanathapuram, Wimco Nagar, Ennore. ….Applicant -VsThe Authorized Officer, M/s. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, NO. 83/41, Kotapati Enclave, Kutcherry Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. …Respondent

¶9

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Sreedhar Counsel for Respondent : Mr. N. Somasundaar

¶11

ORDER

¶12

1. Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶13

1. It is the case of applicant that they had availed loan facilities from the respondent bank and are making every effort to regalarize the same. However owing to fluctuations in their income sources they were not able to regularize their loan account despite complying with both the conditions imposed by this tribunal. It is the case of applicants that they intend to negotiate with respondent bank for an OTS or for regularizing their loan account.

SA No. 218 of 2023

05.03.2024

1. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of compliance of interim conditions imposed by this tribunal no sale had taken place on the scheduled date and thus the impugned sale notice has become infructuous and prayed for appropriate orders.

¶18

1. Whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent bank has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions and also demonstrated the same before the tribunal which are found to be in accordance to law. Ld. Counsel admits that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of interim conditions by the applicant. Ld. Counsel submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and therefore prayed for appropriate orders.

¶19

1. In the circumstances as applicants could not make out any ternable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and further that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of interim conditions by the applicant, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly SA stands dismissed however without costs.

¶20

1. Interim order if any stands vacated. All other IAs stand closed.

¶21

1. With the above directions SA stands disposed.

¶22

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 5^th day of march, 2024)

¶23

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

S Nanda Kumar v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Nanda Kumar v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

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

M S Digital Solution versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Celebrity Exports

Ramesh Prabhu versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Rejina Begam versus Hdb Financial Services

Mohideen Abdul Khader versus Vistaar Financial Services P Ltd.

Dharmapuri Paper Mills Pvt. Lt d versus Indian Bank