Allowed

Sunil K varghese v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT2 Feb 2024SA/587/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application challenging an E-Auction Sale Notice after the respondent bank submitted a memo praying for withdrawal of the notice due to loss of photographs evidencing affixture and lack of bidders on the scheduled date.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice dated 12.10.2023 set aside; liberty granted to respondent bank to proceed further; no order as to costs.

Sunil K varghese versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No. 587 of 2023

02.02.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 02^nd day of February, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.587 of 2023

¶8

Sh. Sunil K. Varghese, S/o K.J. Varghese, No.8, Madha Nagar Main Road, E.V.P. Rajeshwari Avenue, Madanandapuram Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Chennai-600 116.

¶9

….Applicant -Vs-

¶10

The Authorized Officer M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Valasaravakkam Branch, 55, Arcot Road,Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. …Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D.Suriyanarayanan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Annal P

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 12.10.2023 issued

¶15

by respondent bank scheduling sale to 16.11.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,21,069.94p

¶16

Memo vide SR No.1688/24 is filed on behalf of respondent bank submitting therein that respondent bank had misplaced the photographs evidencing affixture of Sale Notice to the secured asset and the same could not be traced despite thorough search. Moreover, sale did not take place on the scheduled date for want of bidders

¶17

and applicant also did not make any payments to prove their bonafides. Hence

SA No. 587 of 2023

02.02.2024

respondent bank had decided to withdraw the impugned Sale Notice dated 12.10.2023 and respondent bank may be permitted to withdraw the same. Thus submitting, Ld. counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶22

Copy of memo is sent to other side by post and respondent bank had furnished postal receipts evidencing the same.

¶23

Perused records. Memo filed on behalf of respondent bank is taken on file. In the result, SA stands allowed. Sale Notice dated 12.10.2023 is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

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 date stands vacated and all other IAs, if any, pending stands 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 in open court on this the 02^nd day of February, 2024)

¶27

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

Sunil K varghese v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil K varghese v. Indian Overseas 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

K Jaganathan versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S S S Motors Rep by Partners v Selvi

State Bank of India versus Kimchi Corner

M s Thiru Travel Service versus M s Omkara Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Padma Shekar

Marg Ltd. versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.