Allowed

Sohanlal Betala v. Indian Bank

DRT26 Mar 2024SA/507/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securities Appellate Tribunal application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai set aside a property sale held on 20.09.2023 because the bank failed to serve a clear 15-day notice before the sale date. The bank was directed not to debit sale expenses.

What did the court decide?

Set aside sale concluded on 20.09.2023; directed not to debit sale expenses; vacated interim orders; closed pending IAs.

Sohanlal Betala versus Indian Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

SA No. 507 of 2023

26.03.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.507 of 2023

¶9

Mr. Sohanlal Betala, S/o. Bhawarlal Betala, No.17/8, Kandappa Acharya Street, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai-600 007. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs -

¶11

The Authorized Officer Indian Bank, Guindy Branch 131, SIDCO Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.K.M. Suresh Counsel for Respondent : M/s. P.V. Murlidhar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the sale held on 20.09.2023 pursuant to Sale Notice

¶16

dated 01.09.2023, issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 98,69,255.36p.

¶17

Respondent bank had entered appearance and filed their counter and typed set

¶18

of documents evidencing their actions taken by them under the act.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that respondent bank failed to give clear 15 days notice, while bringing the property to sale; that respondent bank failed to affix the sale

SA No. 507 of 2023

26.03.2024

notice in the schedule mentioned property; that the Authorized Officer of the respondent bank, without obtaining fresh valuation has fixed the reserve price much lower when compared to the existing market rate of the property. Thus submitting, Ld. Counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶25

Whereas, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that as applicant committed default in repayment of dues, loan account was classified as NPA on 30.09.2014 and respondent bank had initiated SARFAESI proceedings and issued demand notice dated 27.10.2014, possession notice dated 12.01.2015 followed by sale notices, which did not materialize. Hence subsequent sale notice dated 01.09.2023 was issued scheduling sale to 20.09.2023, which all notices were duly delivered to applicant, affixed and published in newspapers in accordance to the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder. Thus submitting, Ld. Counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶26

On perusal of records, it is found that the sale notices at three different addresses of borrowers and guarantor were served on 04.09.2023, 05.09.2023and 07.09.2023 respectively, for the sale scheduled on 20.09.2023 thereby respondent bank failed to serve clear 15 days notice to the borrower while bringing the property to sale. Hence, in view of the same this Tribunal is not in a position to approve the actions of the respondent bank and hence the same is liable to be allowed.

¶27

In the result, SA No.507/2023 stands allowed, however without costs. Sale concluded on 20.09.2023 is hereby set aside. Respondent bank is directed not to debit

SA No. 507 of 2023

26.03.2024

the subject impugned sale notice expenses to the borrowers loan account. Interim order if any granted and subsisting till this date stands vacated. All other IA’s if any pending stands closed.

¶32

With the above directions SA stands disposed.

¶33

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

¶34

guidelines.

¶35

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 26^th day of March, 2024)

¶36

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

Sohanlal Betala v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohanlal Betala v. Indian 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

State Bank of India versus Lekh Raj Sharma

Icici Bank Limited versus Manjunataha Milk Diary

Bank of Maharashtra versus Preetheesh

Canara Bank versus Sri.Paramanagouda. S. Biradar

Canara Bank versus Balasubramanyam. M.K

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sowmya Export Garment