Ss Impex versus Indian Bank

¶1

SA No. 617/2023 (C)

¶2

24.09.2024

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2024

¶6

Present: SHRI A. S. JAYACHANDRA Presiding Officer (In – charge)

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.617 of 2023

¶8

M/s S.S. Impex Represented by Managing Partner Mr. S. Shivak Kumar, No. 97/10B, Minnathur, Kurungulam West, Thanjavur District, Pin: 613 303. Tamil Nadu.

¶9

Mr. S. ShivakKumar S/o. Sivarai, Partner, M/s. S.S. Impex, No.22, 1^st Street, Anthoniyar Nagar, Pudukottai Road, Thanjavur District – 600 006. ….Applicants -Vs1. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Jenne Plaza Complex, 5F, II Floor, Bharathiyar Salai, Trichy District – 620 001.

¶10

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Perambalur Branch, 22/47, Sanjeevarayankoil Street, Perambalur, Perambalur District – 621 701.

¶11

P. Senthilkumar S/o. Palanimuthu No. 165, Sundhar Nagar Extension, Perambalur District - 621 212. ….Defendants

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : Ms. Tanya Kapoor Counsel for Defendants1 & 2 : Ld. Senior counsel Mr. Jayesh Dolia along with Mr. M. Sailesh None for D-3

¶13

SA No. 617/2023 (C)

¶14

2

¶15

24.09.2024

¶16

PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.09.2024

¶17

IA/1485/2024 moved by the D1 and D2 for advancing the case stands disposed of.

¶18

Now the IAs moved on behalf of the applicants are taken up for hearing.

¶19

Orders on IA/1349/2024

¶20

IA filed under section 17(7) of SARFAESI act r/w section 19(25) of the RDB act prays for quashing a letter barring no. 1727/2024 dated 21.05.2024 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 in the IA( who are not parties to the SA).

¶21

It is averred that respondents 1 and 2 have issued the instant letter. The copy of the same is not enclosed with the IA. This Tribunal is provided with the English translation version of the same. It shows that the electricity authority have informed that the power supply by way of new connection would be processed in favour of M/S. Shrivari cashew private Ltd to which the applicants have objected to, through their lawyer Shri. Venkatesan.

¶22

This is the letter signed by the Superintending Engineer, addressed to the lawyer.

¶23

The Ld. Counsel for the applicants-petitioners in the IA submit that the party seeking power supply independently by name M/S. Shrivari cashew private Ltd cannot seek such power supply connection for the following reasons:-

¶24

a. That the party seeking power supply is the lessee under M/s N.S.K. Trading

¶25

company.

¶26

SA No. 617/2023 (C)

¶27

3

¶28

24.09.2024

¶29

b. The said M/s. N.S.K. Trading company is the auction purchaser of the land and building which were earlier mortgaged in favour of the Indian Bank [the D1 and D2] in the main SA i.e., SA/617/2023.

¶30

c. The applicant herein had challenged the vey measures of sale in SA/543/2023 and SA/251/2023, which are pending before the Ld. DRT– Madurai.

¶31

d. The subject matter of the present SA is with regard to the sale notice dated 08.11.2023 which is confined only to the movables referred to in the sale notice comprising of certain machinery.

¶32

e. The Hon’ble High Court in WP.(MD)No.13596/2024 directs this Tribunal to decide the issue of quashing of this letter under challenge by an order dated 27.06.2024.Liberty is given to the petitioner to urge the relief before this tribunal under the present SA.

¶33

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant objects the electricity authority in energizing the line to which the respondent no. 4 had sought for separate power supply on the ground that the movables which is the subject matter of the present SA are the machineries which belong to this applicant and were never hypothecated and the same cannot be allowed to be used by the so called auction purchaser.

¶34

It is also submitted that the present applicant that he is in dark as to where the movables are located.

¶35

SA No. 617/2023 (C)

¶36

24.09.2024

¶37

4

¶38

On the other hand, the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants in the SA and R5 in the IA submits that the allegation that the movables were not hypothecated is not true. The bank is yet to recover its dues remaining balance even after selling the immovable property.

¶39

The Ld. Counsel Shri.Jayanth appearing for the auction purchaser and the lessee submits that his clients are not interested in the machinery involving the subject matter of SA though they participated in the auction and the present applicant cannot subvert/object/create any obstacle in his client getting the separate power supply. In fact his client has applied for New HT Line connection.

¶40

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that they have a separate LT Line connection.

¶41

None appears for the R1 and R2, the Electricity Authority. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that notices are duly served.

¶42

After hearing the Ld. Counsel, it is clear that the subject matter involved in the present SA is with regard to the legality of the sale notice dated 08.11.2023 by which the bank wanted to sell certain movables. These movables are situated at Perambalur District. The immoveable property upon which these movables are found is already sold, which is the subject matter for SA pending before the Ld. DRT Madurai.

¶43

In view of the submissions made by the Ld. Senior counsel for the bank that the bank had already withdrawn the impugned auction sale notice and that the intending party seeking power supply independently and separately for HT

¶44

SA No. 617/2023 (C)

¶45

24.09.2024

¶46

5

¶47

connection, cannot be impeded by this applicant for the proposed power supply seeker on a different premise of facts and circumstances. The present SA is only confined to the legality of the sale notice of movables. The relief urged would affect the rights of the auction purchaser to seek power supply.

¶48

The prayer in the IA seeks to quash the letter issued by the Electricity Authority, such a relief cannot be granted by way of an interlocutory order since such relief is not in conformity and consonance with the main relief urged in the SA. Thus, IA 1349/2024 stands disposed of.

¶49

IA/1350/2024 for relief of stay of all further proceedings consequent to the letter issued by the electricity authority dated 21.05.2024 also stands disposed of as not maintainable and the relief being not in conformity with the main relief.

¶50

Heard on the SA.

¶51

Orders on SA/617/2023:

¶52

The applicant challenges the sale notice dated 08.11.2023 scheduling the auction of movables to be held on 24.11.2023.

¶53

The Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the D1 and D2 submits that the bank had cancelled the sale of movables on 01.04.2024 after the auction having been fructified in favour of M/s. N.S.K. Trading Company. The Ld. counsel had also furnished a copy of the letter of its Zonal office dated 01.04.2024 in which it is made clear that the auction has been cancelled and all the steps are taken to ensure “safeguard the moveable asset” and that the machinery are kept intact. Adequate insurance coverage is in force as on that date.

¶54

SA No. 617/2023 (C)

¶55

24.09.2024

¶56

6

¶57

It is also submitted that these movables are found in the immoveable property which is already sold (subject matter of SA before Ld.DRT Madurai).

¶58

In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the present SA and consequently the following:-

¶59

ORDER

¶60

SA/617/2023 stand disposed of as becoming infructuous. The defendant bank shall not debit any expenses into the account of the applicants concerning the present sale notice.

¶61

The defendant Indian bank shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000 which shall be adjusted to the borrower’s account . The applicants be allowed to inspect the movables by making a representation to the Authorized Officer and due notices be given by the Authorized Officer about the proposed inspection by these applicants to the party in possession of the immovable property.

¶62

A copy of this order be sent to all the parties concerned.

¶63

Sd/(A. S. JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER (In-charge)

¶64

(Dictated to Steno, who typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced in Open Court, on this

¶65

24^th day of September, 2024)

Ss Impex v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ss Impex 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

Bank of Baroda versus Padma Shekar

Yes Bank versus Kgk Construction

Allahabad Bank versus Ram Mohan R

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Masila

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Optical Expression

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ramachandra