The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an SARFAESI application challenging a collateral saleNotice as infructuous. The applicant failed to initiate proceedings within the 45-day limit mandated by Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, rendering the prayer live and diversionary
SARFAESI Application No. 456/2022 stood dismissed as infructuous; no order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
SA. No. 456 of 2022(E)
07.02.2025
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 07th day of February, 2025
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 456 of 2022
-Vs-
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, 2nd Floor, Redcross Buildings, No. 32, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai. ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. V. Parivallal Counsel for respondent : M/s. C.P.R. Kamaraj
ORDER ON SA 456/2022
the sale on 10.11.2022 for recovery of Rs. 76,82,998/- .
2
SA. No. 456 of 2022(E)
07.02.2025
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 7th day of February, 2025).
Sd/-
SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA PRESIDING OFFICER-DRT III
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the SARFAESI application is maintainable when the sale notice period exceeded statutory limits.
Whether the prayer for setting aside the sale remains valid after the sale date passed without execution.
If the application has become infructuous due to non-compliance within the prescribed time frame.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Saranya
V. Radhakrishnan
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India
S.V. GOWRAMMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
