Disposed

S Muthukumaran v. Canara Bank

DRT26 Feb 2025SA/182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of the Securitization Application filed by S. Muthukumaran against Canara Bank challenging a Sale Notice. The court held that as the auction did not materialise due to lack of bidders and no other challenged measures remained within the 45-day period, the application became infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Sanctioning the disposal of SA No. 182/2024 as infructuous; vacating any interim order granted; disposing of pending IAs in terms of this order.

S Muthukumaran versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.182/2024

26.02.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 182 of 2024

¶8

Sh. S. Muthukumaran No.21, Poothurai Road Thiruchitrambalam, Vanur Taluk Villupuram – 605 111

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Canara Bank Rep. by its Authorised Officer Reddiyarapayalam Branch No.5, Villupuram Main Road Pavazha Nagar, Reddiyarpalayam Puducherry – 605 010 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicants : M/s S. Suseela Devi Counsel for Respondent : M/s Akshai Mani

¶14

ORDER ON SA No. 182 OF 2024

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 25.03.2024 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 and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶16

The applicant has challenged the Sale Notice dated 29.02.2024 issued by respondent bank, fixing the sale on 05.04.2024, for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,98,963.13p.

¶17

This case was moved on 01.04.2024 by the applicant. IA No.542/24 – stay petition was allowed subject to condition directing applicant to deposit Demand Draft for Rs.2 lakhs by or before 04.04.2024 and another 10% of the amount due within a

SA No.182/2024

26.02.2025

period of four weeks thereafter. Notice was ordered to respondent bank returnable by 09.05.2024. On 09.05.2024, case was re-posted to 26.06.2024. On 26.06.2024, case was posted to 13.09.2024, on which date applicant had reported compliance of conditional order by way of filing memo.

¶22

Respondent bank entered appearance and filed their vakalath on 13.09.2024. During the pendency of SA, Bank counsel filed a memo dated 25.02.2025 intimating that auction which was scheduled on 05.04.2024 did not materialise for want of bidders. Hence prays for closing the SA as Sale Notice has become infructuous.

¶23

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

¶24

Memo filed by respondent is taken on record. As the sale has not materialized and there are no other measures under challenge is within 45 days, hence nothing survives in the SA for adjudication and the prayer sought in the SA has become infructuous.

¶25

Accordingly, SA.No.182/2024 stands disposed of as having rendered infructuous. Both the counsels have endorsed in the proceeding sheets admitting the facts. Interim order granted if any, stands vacated. Pending IAs if any, are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to costs.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

26^th day of February, 2025)

S Muthukumaran v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Muthukumaran v. Canara 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

Gopi Engineering Works versus Indian Bank

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S C B K Traders

M Mohana versus Smfg India Credit Company Limited

Federal Bank versus Adhiyaman

Union Bank of India versus Mrs Sudha Sundaravaradhan And Another

Alphamed Labs and others versus Bank of Baroda