Uco Bank v. Mrs Akshaya And Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal challenging DRT order allowing recovery application due to bank's failure to prove service of possession notice. Court disposed appeal by modifying direction on bank's obligation to pay advocate fees.
What did the court decide?
Direction for bank to pay advocate fee reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000; rest of appeal disposed.
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 10th day of December, 2024
PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
CHAIRPERSON
RA (SA) 126/2017
(arising out of SA 416/2015 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)
Between
The Authorised Officer, M/s UCO Bank, No.73, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 60034.
…..Appellant Bank
And
1. M/s Akshaya, W/o D.C. Jeyakumar, 15A, Brindavan Street, Balaiyah Garden,
Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate adjudicating officer can modify the contingent direction to pay advocate fees to the borrower's counsel given that possession has already been taken by the bank.
Whether the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal should be modified to reduce the amount payable to the borrower's advocate from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
The Authorised Officer, M/s UCO Bank
- respondent
M/s Akshaya
- respondent
Mrs. Lokasundari R.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
14 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court