Allowed

S Muruguan v. Indian Bank

DRT26 Apr 2024SA/480/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's SARFAESI application setting aside the sale notice due to procedural infirmity in service of possession notice. Possession was restored to the mortgagor with liberty to the bank to proceed further upon continued default.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 16.08.2023 set aside; possession restored to mortgagor; liberty to bank to proceed on continued default.

S Muruguan versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No.480 of 2023

26.04.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of April, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.480 of 2023

¶9

Mr. S. Murugan S/o. Seenan 5/40A, Vellichandhai Village Dhandukaranahalli – Po Palacode – TK Dharmapuri District – 636808. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Palacode Branch 109E, Upstairs Main Road, Palacode – 638 808. Dharmapuri District. ….R espondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. N.G Durairajan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S. Parthasarathy

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the sale notice dated 16.08.2023 issued by

¶16

respondent bank scheduling sale to 20.09.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,35,160/-.

¶17

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for respondent bank.

¶18

Ld. counsel for respondent bank fairly conceded that possession notice could not

¶19

be served to applicant by post, however the same was affixed in the secured asset and published in two newspapers. It is submitted that in view of the said infirmity,

SA No.480 of 2023

26.04.2024

respondent bank may be permitted to withdraw the subject impugned sale notice and also made an endorsement to that effect in the SA paper book and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶24

In the result, SA stands allowed. Sale notice dated 16.08.203 is hereby set aside. In view of withdrawal of possession notice by respondent bank, possession is restored to mortgagor. However, liberty be with respondent bank to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues. Interim order, if any, granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any, pending stand closed.

¶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 26^th day of April, 2024)

¶27

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

S Muruguan v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Muruguan v. Indian Bank

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

I Robinson Britto versus Indusind Bank Limited

Mr S Ramasamy and Mrs R Padma versus Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

Vimal Traders versus City Union Bank Limited

Jai Industries versus State Bank of India

G Parthiban and Subathra versus Axis Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Thangakumar C