Allowed

Senguttuvan v. Indian Bank

DRT29 Apr 2024SA/485/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the SARFAESI application challenging the sale notice. The respondent bank withdrew the sale due to want of bidders. The sale notice expenses were directed not to be debited from the borrower's account, and the application was disposed of with liberty to proceed if default continues.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice expenses not to be debited to borrower's account; liberty to proceed if default continues; interim orders vacated; all other IAs closed.

Senguttuvan versus Indian Bank — Consumer Protection | DRT (2024)

SA No.485 of 2023

29.04.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2024

¶6

Present: ShriGanapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.485of 2023

¶8

Mr. R. Senguttuvan, S/o. Late Rajaratnam, No.1, DRR Avenue, Audco Nagar, Kattupakkam, Poonamallee, Chennai -600 056.

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Indian Bank

¶12

Rep. by its the Authorized Officer Saidapet Branch, Chennai -600 015.

¶13

Indian Bank

¶14

No.1, Abdul Razak Street, Saidapet Branch, Chennai -600 015. ….R espondents

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. C. D. Vivekanandan Counsel for Defendant : M/s. P.V. Muralidhar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.08.2023 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 20.09.2023 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,90,95,247/-.

¶19

Today a memo is filed on behalf of respondent bank submitting therein that no

¶20

sale had taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and hence respondent

SA No.485 of 2023

29.04.2024

bank is withdrawing the subject impugned sale notice and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶25

Copy of memo is served to other side. Memo filed on behalf of respondent bank is taken on file.

¶26

In the result, SA stands allowed, however without costs. Respondent bank is directed not to debit subject impugned sale notice expenses to borrower’s loan account. 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.

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 29^th day of April, 2024)

¶30

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

Senguttuvan v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senguttuvan 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

S Muruguan versus Indian Bank

G Parthiban and Subathra versus Axis Bank

Jai Industries versus State Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Thangakumar C

Ms Lakshmi Industries versus The Authosized Officer Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Orgee Inc.