AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in SA 86/2019 on 25.06.2019.
The order dated 25.06.2019 passed in SA 86/2019 reads as follows:-
“ This SA is filed challenging the sale notice dated 21.03.2019 scheduling the auction sale to 30.04.2019 issued by the respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,34,733/-.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties.
It was the case of the appellants that they are willing to negotiate with respondent-bank to regularize their loan account in accordance to the negotiations. Time has been availed from this Tribunal only on the ground of reconciliation of the accounts with the respondent bank and for arriving at negotiated amicable settlement with a time bound redemption schedule by appellants, which also undertook through its representative counsel that the appellants are prepared to settle the loan account and also redeem the property sold to a third party. However, despite availing sufficient time appellants could not augment funds for redeeming the property and the Ld. Representative counsel has conceded that appellant could not meet his undertakings due to several constraints.
Respondent Bank had filed its counter and typed set of documents evidencing its actions. Appellants could not establish any infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice and even otherwise appellants had availed sufficient time in the name of redemption, which also could not be accomplished, the present appeal is without any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim Stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated”
The reading of the order shows that the DRT has disposed the SA 86/2019 on two grounds viz., (i) despite offering to settle the loan account through negotiations and gaining time, appellants had not settled the loan account and (ii) the counter and typed set of documents established that the SARFAESI measures had been taken without any infirmities.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Presiding Officer has not considered any of the grounds raised in the securitization application. Therefore, this order may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank opposes this submission and submits that the appellants alone had invited the order by offering to settle the loan account and consumed lot of time in the process.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
Appellants had raised several grounds starting from the ground (i) to challenge the impugned sale notice dated 21.03.2019. The grounds mainly focused around the wrong classification of account as NPA when the account was a standard account; not permitting the appellants to operate the OCC Account No. 6002695768 and initiation of SARFAESI measures with issuance of demand notice and possession notice without application of mind.
The learned Presiding Officer, without considering any of the ground raised in the SARFAESI application, chose to mention that the counter affidavit and the documents produced in the typed set established that the measures taken by the respondent are proper. The learned Presiding Officer ought to have discussed the case of the parties, documents produced in support of their case and then disposed the securitization application. That was not done in this case. Once, sale notice is published, the right of redemption is lost. Therefore, the time given by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai to settle the loan account, prima facie is not appropriate and legal. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that the order is a non-speaking order and without application of mind and also without considering the grounds raised and documents produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, in SA 86/2019 is set aside and the appeal is allowed and SA 86/2019 is remitted to DRT-III, Chennai for consideration and disposal in accordance with law.
It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that in pursuance of the impugned sale notice, sale was held and sale certificate was issued.
In the said circumstances, it is necessary that the auction purchaser should also be impleaded in the securitization application. The appellants are directed to take steps for impleading the auction purchaser for effective adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any shall stand closed.