Dhananjayan v. Indian Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of a Securitization Application challenging a sale notice as infructuous. The court held that with no sale held, the measure fell outside the statutory period, leaving nothing for adjudication.
What did the court decide?
Application disposed of as infructuous; interim order, if any, vacated; pending IAs disposed of.
What the court decided
SA No. 324 of 2023
12.03.2025
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 12th day of March 2025
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA
Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No.324 of 2023
Mr. S. Dhananjayan, S/o. Subrayan, No. 232, Drowbathi Amman Koil Street, Pillaichavady, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District – 605 104. ….Applicant
-Vs-
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER Indian Bank, Zonal Office Puducherry, No. 66/4,East Coast Road, Pakkamudayanpet Puducherry – 605 008. ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Securitization Application challenging a sale notice becomes infructuous if the sale proceedings fail due to lack of bidders and time limits are not met.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
S. Dhananjayan
- respondent
The Authorized Officer Indian Bank, Zonal Office Puducherry
Coram
S.V. Gowramma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court