A Sarafasi Application challenging a sale notice issued by a bank for recovery of dues was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove any tenable infirmities in the bank'sprocedure.
The Sale Notice dated 08.11.2022 is set aside and the SA is dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
SA No.482 of 2022
25.04.2024
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2024
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.
Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No.482 of 2022
Also at: Mr. F. Benjamin Arokiyaraj S/o. Mr. Francis Xavier
2
SA No.482 of 2022
25.04.2024
The Authorized Officer, City Union Bank Limited Credit Recovery Management Department ‘Narayana’ Administrative Office No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam-612 001.
Branch Office at: No.3568, TNHB Kakalur, Thiruvallur-602 001.
….R espondent
C ounsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. S. Ramesh Counsel for Respondent : M/s. R. Sivaraman
ORDER
Notice dated 30.10.2021 followed by subject impugned Sale Notice dated 08.11.2022.
3
SA No.482 of 2022
25.04.2024
It is contended that respondent bank failed to mention payments made by them to the tune of Rs.72 lakhs on various dates from 23.11.2021 to 01.03.2022 and had claimed exorbitant amount in the Sale Notice.
typed set of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act. It is submitted that subsequent to availing of loan, applicant failed to adhere to the terms of loan agreement and defaulted in payment of monthly installments, thus resulting in classification of loan account as NPA on 30.11.2020 and Demand Notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 23.04.2021 calling upon the applicants to discharge the liabilities in full within 60 days from the date of the notice, which was duly served to all applicants as evidenced from acknowledgment cards filed along with typed set of documents. In
4
SA No.482 of 2022
25.04.2024
addition to service of Demand Notice, it was also published in two newspapers. Even after expiry of statutory period, as applicants did not come forward to repay the dues, respondent had issued symbolic possession Notice on 30.10.2021, which was duly served, affixed and published in ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’ on 02.11.2021. It is submitted that the security interest has been duly registered with the Central Registry on 17.10.2017.
5
SA No.482 of 2022
25.04.2024
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2024)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the SA filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 08.11.2021 could succeed.
Whether any infirmities existed in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the sale notice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Vimal Traders
F. Benjamin Arokiyaraj
Monicka Dorthi
F. Jabamalai
T.V. Latha
City Union Bank Limited
Ganapathi K.R.K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
