Disposed

Mr Ramdas v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT25 Feb 2025SA/824/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the applicant challenged a sale notice issued by the respondent bank. The auction did not materialize due to lack of bidders. The court held that as the sale failed and no other measures were under challenge, the application became infructuous and was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No. 824/2024 is disposed of as having become infructuous.

Mr Ramdas versus Bank of Maharashtra — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

SA No.824/2024

25.02.2025

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. 824 of 2024

¶8

Sh. P. Ramadas S/o Perumal Residing at No.3/56, Mannadiamman Koil Street Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091 ….Applicants -VsThe Authorised Officer, Asset Recovery Branch M/s Bank of Maharashtra No.4, Sivagnanam Road, 1^st Floor T. Nagar Chennai – 600 017 ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicants : M/s R. Sreedhar Counsel for Respondent : M/s A. Karthikeyan

¶9

ORDER ON SA No. 824 OF 2024

¶10

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 21.11.2024 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].

¶11

The applicant has challenged the Sale Notice dated 04.11.2024 issued by respondent bank fixing the sale on 26.11.2024, for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,95,761/-.

SA No.824/2024

25.02.2025

This case was moved on 25.11.2024 by the applicant. IA No.2299/24 – stay petition was allowed subject to condition directing applicant to deposit 20% of the amount due on or before 12.30 p.m. on 26.11.2024 and 10% of the amount due within 30 days thereafter. Notice was ordered to respondent bank returnable by 23.01.2025. On 23.01.2025, case was re-posted to 21.02.2025. On 21.02.2025, applicant had reported part compliance of conditional order by way of filing memo.

¶16

Bank counsel filed a memo dated 24.02.2025 intimating that auction on 26.11.2024 did not materialise for want of bidders. Hence prays for closing the SA as Sale Notice has become infructuous.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Accordingly, SA.No.824/2024 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.

¶20

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

¶21

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 25^th day of February, 2025)

Mr Ramdas v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ramdas v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

Gopi Engineering Works versus Indian Bank

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S C B K Traders

M Mohana versus Smfg India Credit Company Limited