Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) The mortgage with the Central Bank of India, Chennai was created in 2003, with original title deeds. The Canara Bank is not having the original title deeds and therefore, the mortgage in favour of the Central Bank of India, is only valid and legal.
(2) The Canara Bank, Chennai, in the impugned sale notice, has fixed the upset price at Rs.165 Lakhs, which will not cover the dues of the Central Bank of India and therefore, there is no need or necessity for the Canara Bank to bring the property for sale, in which, they do not have any secured interest.
The above mentioned property was mortgaged with 1st charge to the Central Bank of India, Chennai and second charge to Canara Bank, Chennai.

8. According to the Canara Bank, Chennai, on 24.04.2005, they sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs.14 Crores, with a sub limit of packing credit as Rs.6 Crores and Bill discounting facilities of Rs.5 Crores to M/s.Capro Connections. Since the Petitioners have failed to pay the loan, as per the sanctioned terms and conditions, Canara Bank was constrained to declare the account as NPA, as per norms. Further SARFAESI Action was initiated under Section 13(2). As per the demand notice, dated 23.01.2007, the outstanding loan amounts were as http://www.judis.nic.in follows:

“20. But the stand taken by the applicant/Central Bank of India does not appeared to be fair and reasonable. If the Canara Bank did not have a second charge on the properties the Canara Bank could not have done two things. http://www.judis.nic.in First is that the Canara Bank could not have authorized the Central Bank of India to proceed with the sale. Second is that the Central bank of India could not have filed an appeal in S.A.No.210 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking a direction to the Canara Bank to the property. After having done so it is not open to Central bank of India to raise a dispute and the claim that such dispute should be resolved under Sec. 11"

25. Letter, evidencing of deposit of Title Deeds were filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, by the Canara Bank and that the Central Bank of India, vide its letter, dated 11.03.2008, had http://www.judis.nic.in requested Canara Bank to proceed under SARFAESI Act, as the second charge holder. Thereafter, a joint memo of compromise has been filed by Central Bank of India, Chennai and Canara Bank, Chennai and thereafter, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chennai, passed a common order on 31.10.2014, dismissing the application in S.A.No.210 of 2009, duly impleading the petitioners herein and in the S.A.SR.No.5775 of 2011, the DRT held that the sale by the Canara Bank on 30.12.2010 is valid in law and directed the Canara Bank to issue sale certificate in favour of the Auction purchaser, as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. Accordingly Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser, on 10.11.2014. The Petitioner herein had challenged the above said order by filing S.A.No.5 of 2015, which came to be dismissed, as follows: