Dismissed

Sreenevasha Services rep by proprietor Mr P Chakkaravarthy v. Indian Bank

DRT25 Mar 2024SA/522/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed SARFAESI Application No. 522 of 2023 filed by applicants challenging a sale on the grounds of non-issue of second sale notice. The application was withdrawn by the applicants and the tribunal upheld the withdrawal without costs.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed as withdrawn; costs to the opposite party; interim stay vacated; other pending IAs closed.

Sreenevasha Services rep by proprietor Mr P Chakkaravarthy… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No.522 of 2023

25.03.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.522 of 2023

¶9

M/s. Sreenevasha Services, Rep by Proprietor Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy, S/o. 274/1, Krishnagiri Main Road, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District-635 111.

¶10

Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy, S/o. Parthiban,

¶11

D. No. 2/146, Alamarathupatti Bommahalli, Karimangalam,

¶12

Dharmapuri District

¶13

Mrs. C. Kalaimani, W/o. Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy, D. No. 2/146, Alamarathupatti Bommahalli, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District. ….Applicants -Vs - The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Karimangalam Branch, No.16, Palacode Road, Karimanagalam, Dharmapuri District. . .… Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G. Mohammedaseef Counsel for Respondent : M/S. L. Ramkumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

dated 17.08.2022 issued by respondent bank, for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,46,832/-.

SA No.522 of 2023

25.03.2024

Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that she may be permitted to withdraw the SA and had undertaken to file memo to that effect during course of the day after serving copy on the other side.

¶21

Memo vide SR No.4710/24 is filed on behalf of applicant submitting therein that respondent bank have not issued second sale notice to applicants while filing this present SA and that applicants came to know about the second sale notice only when respondent bank filed their counter in this case. Hence it is submitted that applicant may be permitted to withdraw the SA, with liberty to file fresh application challenging the second sale notice.

¶22

Copy of memo is sent to other side by E-mail.

¶23

Perused. Memo filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record. In the result, SA is dismissed as withdrawn, however without costs. Interim stay, if any, granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any, pending stands closed.

¶24

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

¶25

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 25^th day of March, 2024)

¶26

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

Sreenevasha Services rep by proprietor Mr P Chakkaravarthy v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenevasha Services rep by proprietor Mr P Chakkaravarthy v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manogaran versus State Bank of India

Mr S Elamathy versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Usha Shanthini versus Indian Bank

Sathish Kumar versus Indian Bank

Mrs B Gayathiri versus City Union Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sivasubramanian