Dismissed

Gopi Engineering Works v. Indian Bank

DRT25 Feb 2025SA/130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the applicant challenged a Sale Notice issued by the respondent bank. The court found the notice was inadvertently issued while a stay order was active and had been cancelled by the bank. No adjudication was required, and the application was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application is dismissed as infructuous. The respondent bank is directed to refund court fees by crediting to the borrower's loan account within a week.

Gopi Engineering Works versus Indian Bank — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.130/2025 (C)

¶2

25.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 130 of 2025

¶8

M/s Gopi Engineering Works Rep. by its Proprietor Mrs. A. Kalavathi No.14, Jeeva 3^rd Street Kannadapalayam Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066

¶9

Ms. A. Kalavathi W/o E.S. Anandhan No.14, Jeeva 3^rd Street Kannadapalayam Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066

¶10

Mr. E.S. Anandhan S/o Elumalai No.14, Jeeva 3^rd Street Kannadapalayam Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066 ….Applicants -Vs-

¶11

Indian Bank Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Red Hills Branch No.1, Ambedkar Street, Red Hills Tiruvallur, Chennai – 600 052 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicants : Sh. M. Venkadesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Mrs. V. Rajeswari

¶14

ORDER ON SA No. 130 OF 2025

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 12.02.2025 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action

¶16

SA No.130/2025 (C)

¶17

25.02.2025

¶18

¶19

and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶20

The applicant has challenged the Sale Notice dated 08.01.2025 issued by respondent bank fixing the sale on 14.02.2025, for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,46,729/-.

¶21

This case was moved on 20.02.2025 by the applicant, on which day, it was represented by counsel for respondent bank that sale did not take place and that there is connected SA No.402/2024 filed by applicant challenging the Section 13(4) notice and counsel sought time for taking necessary instructions from bank. At request, case is posted to today.

¶22

A memo dated 24.02.2025 has been filed by respondent bank submitting therein that Sale Notice was inadvertently issued by respondent bank, when stay order dated 11.07.2024 granted in SA No.402/2022 has been operating. It is further submitted that realizing the inadvertent mistake, respondent bank subsequently had cancelled the Sale Notice dated 08.01.2025 and the information about cancellation of Sale Notice dated 08.01.2025 was also sent to the applicant. Thus submitting, Ld. counsel for respondent bank prayed for disposing the SA as infructuous. Copy of memo is served to Ld. counsel appearing for applicant.

¶23

Both the counsels have endorsed their signatures in the proceedings sheet admitting the same.

¶24

Heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the records of the case.

¶25

SA No.130/2025 (C)

¶26

25.02.2025

¶27

¶28

As respondent bank had withdrawn the Sale Notice, admitting their inadvertence in issuing the same, during the subsistence of stay granted by this Tribunal, nothing survives for adjudication in this SA.

¶29

Accordingly, the present SA stands dismissed as infructuous. However, respondent bank is directed to refund the Court fee paid by applicant at the time of filing SA, by crediting the same to the borrower’s loan account within a week from today i.e., on or before 05.03.2025 and on compliance of the direction of this Tribunal, the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further with their SARFAESI measures in accordance to law.

¶30

Interim order granted, if any stands vacated and pending IA’s are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to cost.

¶31

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶32

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the

¶33

25^th day of February, 2025)

Gopi Engineering Works v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Engineering Works 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

Mrs Seerisha N versus the Authorized Officer Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Andhra Bank versus Mr P Murugesan

Bank of India versus Gunasundari

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S C B K Traders

M Mohana versus Smfg India Credit Company Limited

Mr Ramdas versus Bank of Maharashtra