Disposed

Mrs K Manimegale v. Indian Bank

DRT15 Oct 2025SA/648/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, applicants challenged a sale notice for lacking 15 days' notice. The tribunal noted the sale did not proceed due to no bidders. Holding the application infructuous, the tribunal disposed of the petition, vacated interim orders, and disposed of pending IAs.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application disposed of as infructuous; interim orders vacated; pending IAs disposed of.

Mrs K Manimegale versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 648 of 2024

¶2

15.10.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 15^th day of October 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.648 of 2024

¶9

Mrs. K. Manimegale W/o. G. Kumar No.58-A, Kamban Street, R.K. Nagar, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry – 605007.

¶10

Mr. G. Kumar,

¶11

S/o Gnanamoorthy

¶12

No.58-A, Kamban Street,

¶13

R.K. Nagar, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry – 605007.

¶14

Mr. G. Arivuchelvam

¶15

S/o Gnanamoorthy

¶16

No.58-A, Kamban Street,

¶17

R.K. Nagar, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry – 605007.

¶18

…Applicants

¶19

-Vs-

¶20

The Authorized Officer, INDIAN Bank, IFSC Code:IDIB000L007 No.169, Lawspet Main Road, Lawspet – 605008, Puducherry.

¶21

…Respondent

¶22

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶23

Counsel for Applicant : M/s K. A. Ramakrishnan Counsel for Respondent : M/s K. Radhakrishnamurthy

¶24

SA No. 648 of 2024

15.10.2025

ORDER

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 18.09.2024 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].

¶29

Applicants are the borrowers, who has filed the present SA, challenging the Sale Notice dated 09.09.2024 issued by respondent bank, fixing the sale on 25.09.2024, for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,64,746/- due as on 08.09.2024 and the prayer as sought for in the SA is to set aside the sale notice.

¶30

The applicant had filed IA No.1797/2024 had stayed of the sale contending that there is no 15 days’ notice as notice is posted on 10.09.2024 fixing the sale on 25.09.2024. The Tribunal vide Order dated 23.09.2024 stayed the sale notice on conditional deposit of 10% of the amount due on or before 11.30 am on 25.09.2024 and an equal sum to be deposited within 30 day’s thereafter. Applicant had reported compliance of conditional order vide memo filed on 10.12.2024.

¶31

Respondent bank had entered appearance and filed their vakalat on

¶32

03.12.2024, counter along with supporting documents on 15.03.2025.

¶33

SA No. 648 of 2024

¶34

¶35

15.10.2025

¶36

On 13.10.2025 when the case was taken up, counsel for the respondent bank submitted that sale did not take place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and hence the present SA has become infructuous, which is also mentioned in para 19 of the counter filed by respondent bank.

¶37

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

¶38

It is seen from the records, that the borrowing is not disputed by the applicant. The contention as raised by the applicant is that the sale notice dated 09.09.2024 is posted on 10.09.2024 scheduling the property to be sold on 25.09.2024, hence there is no 15 days’ notice of sale.

¶39

The respondent bank has filed the sale notice along with acknowledgement cards at Page No.28-37 of the bank’s counter and affixture of the sale notice on 09.09.2024. It is seen that the respondent bank has affixed the Sale notice dated 09.09.2024 on the same day as evident from the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.38 of the bank’s counter. Hence there is clear 15 days’ notice of sale as required under the Act. 8. Therefore, the contention raised by the applicant that there is no 15 days clear notice for sale of the property fails and does not sustain. The scheduled sale has not taken place as submitted by the counsel for the respondent in their counter at Para No.19 and the same is recorded vide proceedings dated 13.10.2025. As the prayer is to set aside the sale notice and the sale has not

¶40

SA No. 648 of 2024

¶41

15.10.2025

¶42

¶43

materialized rendering the SA as infructuous. Hence, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present SA.

¶44

Accordingly, SA.No.574 of 2023 stands disposed of as having rendered

¶45

infructuous. Both the counsels have admitted that the present SA has become infructuous.

¶46

Interim order granted if any, stands vacated. Pending IAs if any, are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to costs.

¶47

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

¶48

(Dictated to Mogesh, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 15^th day of October, 2025)

Mrs K Manimegale v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs K Manimegale 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

Rbl Bank Limited versus M s Siva Sakthi Travels Rep by its Proprietor and another

Bank of Baroda versus Ms S R a a Shipping

State Bank of India versus Padma Priya

Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus Tamil nadu Cloth Stores

Axis Bank versus Galaxy Business Solution And Marketing

State Bank of India versus R Prasanth