Madras High Court
Yess Vee Brothers vs State Bank Of India on 10 July, 2023
W.P.No.20110 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.No.20110 of 2023
1. Yess Vee Brothers
rep. by its Partner, S.Vasantha
No.331, Women Industrial Park
SIDCO, Thirumallaivoyal
Chennai – 600 062.
2. S.Vasantha
3. R.Selvaraj
4. Manohar Selvaraj .. Petitioners
Vs
1. State Bank of India
rep. by its Authorised Officer
SME Branch, Ambattur Industrial Estate
86A and B, II Main Road
Chennai – 600 058.
2. M.Mohanasundari
3. G.Parameswari .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records of the order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in
RA (SA) 179/2018 dated 9.3.2023, confirming the order dated
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20110 of 2023
11.1.2018 of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in S.A.No.272 of
2017, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to
restore possession of the properties comprised in S.No.144 part, Plot
No.16, of Renganatha Nagar, Korattur Village, Ambattur Taluk,
Thiruvalluvar District and property at Plot No.102, SIDCO Womens
Industrial Park at Thirumullaivoyil comprised in S.No.153 part and 154
part of Vellanur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District
admeasuring about 4000 sq. mtrs.
For the Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramesh
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal and confirmed by the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal.
3. The petitioners had challenged the auction sale notice
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It appears that there was no
stay granted. The auction sale was conducted. The Debts Recovery
Tribunal rejected the Securitisation Application filed by the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20110 of 2023
petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal. In the
appeal, the petitioners raised two grounds: (i) the property was
undervalued; and (ii) the auction purchaser did not deposit the
amount within the stipulated period as required under Rule 8(6) of
the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the sale
had taken place on 10.11.2017 and the auction purchaser deposited
the amount on 31.1.2018. There is no order by the bank/secured
creditor extending the time for the auction purchaser to deposit the
amount.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the submission with regard to
the undervaluation of the property on the ground that the sale is
not challenged. However, the sale had taken place during the
pendency of the proceedings. On these two counts, the sale ought
to have been set aside.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20110 of 2023
6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the petitioners and have gone through the judgments passed by the
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
7. It is a fact that the petitioners did not challenge the auction
sale conducted. The petitioners had only challenged the auction
sale notice. The petitioners also, it appears, did not amend the
application and challenge the auction sale. When the petitioners
failed to challenge the auction sale, there is no merit in contending
that the auction purchaser has not deposited the amount within the
stipulated period.
8. Moreover, under the proviso to Rule 8(6) of the Rules,
power has been bestowed upon the bank/secured creditor to extend
the time for the auction purchaser to deposit the amount to an
extent of 90 days. The amount is deposited within 90 days even
according to the petitioners. The bank/secured creditor has not
objected to the same. It would appear that the bank/secured
creditor in a way extended the time for the auction purchaser to
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20110 of 2023
deposit the amount.
9. We do not find any error in the view taken by the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
In the light of that, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order
as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.19450 of 2023 is closed.
W.M.P.No.19448 of 2023 filed to permit the petitioners to file a
single writ petition is allowed and disposed of, inasmuch as they
have paid separate sets of court fee.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
10.07.2023
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
sasi
To:
The Authorised Officer
State Bank of India
SME Branch, Ambattur Industrial Estate
86A and B, II Main Road
Chennai – 600 058.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20110 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
(sasi)
W.P.No.20110 of 2023
10.07.2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
