Mrs K Vimala v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai dismissed a Chamber Appeal as the Appellant failed to comply with Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act by depositing the requisite security or seeking a waiver. The Court disagreed with the argument that no deposit is needed for interim orders.
What did the court decide?
Chamber Appeal (Miscellaneous Application 8/2022) is dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 15th of March, 2023
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar
CHAIRPERSON
Chamber Appeal (Miscellaneous Application 8/2022)
in
AIR (SA) 195/2021
[Order dated 19.07.2022 of Registrar, DRAT, Chennai]
Between
Mrs. K. Vimala, Prop. of VRS Coconut Trades, Previously residing at D. No. 243, Survey Ward No. J, Block No.17, T.S. No. 66, Erumapalayam Extension, Saniyasi Goundu Main Road, National School Back Side, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
Presently residing at:
D. No.2, Erumapalayam Extension, Saniyasi Goundu Main Road, National School Back side, Kitchipalayam, Salem – 636 015.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Chamber Appeal challenging an Interim Order requires compliance with the statutory deposit provision under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Whether the Registrar was justified in declining the Appeal due to non-filing of the required Waiver Application and non-deposit of the security.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mrs. K. Vimala, Prop. of VRS Coconut Trades
- respondent
The Authorised Officer, M/s. Canara Bank, SME Branch
- respondent
M/s. Canara Bank, SME Branch
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · March
- CNR
- 331090001952021
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court