Mr E v. Shiril v South Indian Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal for non-compliance with a conditional order mandating a monetary deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, before the prescribed deadline.
What did the court decide?
Appeal rejected for non-compliance with the requirement to deposit Rs.4,48,03,341/- by 13.10.2022.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 14th of October, 2022
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
AIR (SA) 231/2022
[SA 595/2022 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore]
Between
Mr.E.V. Shiril, Proprietor of M/s. EVS Foods and Beverages, 45A, Bharathi Colony, 2nd Street, Peelamedu, Tamilnadu – 641 004
….Appellant
And
The Authorised Officer, The South Indian Bank Ltd., Regional Office, P.B. No. 3868, Trichy Road, Sungam, Coimbatore – 641 018.
….Respondent
Counsel for Appellant : Mr. S. Sukumar Counsel for Respondent : Mr. M. L. Ganesh
1
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be rejected for non-compliance with the conditional order requiring deposit under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mr.E.V. Shiril, Proprietor of M/s. EVS Foods and Beverages
- respondent
The Authorised Officer, The South Indian Bank Ltd.
Coram
S. Ravi Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court