Dismissed

Mrs B Gayathiri v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT25 Mar 2024SA/671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a SARFAESI application filed by a farmer challenging a sale notice dated 18.11.2023 issued for recovery of a principal sum of Rs.65,07,973/-. The court observed that the sale did not take place due to lack of bidders, rendering the application infructuous and devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice is challenged; application dismissed as infructuous without costs.

Mrs B Gayathiri versus City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No.671 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.671 of 2023

¶9

Mrs. B. Gayathiri, W/o. V. Balakrishnan, No.141, South West Boag Road, Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer, City Union Bank Ltd., No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur- 612 001. . … Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. N. Suresh Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Hasmukh. S. Surana

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 18.11.2023 issued by

¶16

respondent bank scheduling sale to 28.12.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.65,07,973/-

¶17

Counsel for respondent bank is present. No representation on behalf of applicant

¶18

even during second round of call work. Compliance of conditional order also has not been reported.

¶19

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that sale did not take place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned Sale Notice. Ld.

SA No.671 of 2023

25.03.2024

Counsel for respondent bank demonstrated their actions through typed set of documents, which are found to be in accordance to law.

¶24

As sale did not take place on the scheduled date for want of bidders, present SA has become infructuous and nothing survives for adjudication.

¶25

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank, while issuing the impugned sale notice, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any

¶27

granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶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 25^th day of March, 2024)

¶30

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

Sd/-

Mrs B Gayathiri v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs B Gayathiri v. City Union Bank Limited

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

Manogaran versus State Bank of India

Mr S Elamathy versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Usha Shanthini versus Indian Bank

Sathish Kumar versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Sivasubramanian

Jayam Educational Health and Charitable Trust versus Religare Finvest Limited