This writ appeal was dismissed by the DTAP, Upholding the lower courts finding that the Appellant failed to comply with prior conditional orders. The Tribunal found no cause to interfere with the view that there were no procedural irregularities in the issuance of notices by the bank.
Dismissal of the appeal and order of costs to be borne by the parties.
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 28th day of January, 2025
PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
CHAIRPERSON
MA (SA) 21/2021
(Arising out of IA 2459/2018 in SA 502/2018 on the file of DRT, Madurai)
Between
Mrs. R.Chitra W/o. P.Ramasamy, D.No.1/2, Ward No.1, Nadanthai Village and Post, Paramathyvelur Taluk, Namakkal District. …..Appellant
And
1. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Nadanthai Branch, Main Road, Namakkal.
2. The Authorsied Officer Indian Bank, Zonal Office, 15/1, Dhivya Tower 2nd Floor, Fort Main Road Salem – 636 001. …..Respondents
Counsel for Appellant : Mr. P.Murugan Counsel for R1 & R2 : Mr. S.Rengasamy
1
ORDER
2
by the respondent bank in respect of the Demand notice dated 03.11.2016, Possession notice dated 10.03.2017 and the Sale notice dated 31.08.2018. Relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India reported in 2007 (2) D.R.T.C 401 (SC), that if an order passed by the competent court, be it interim or final, has to be obeyed without any reservation. If such order is disobeyed or not complied with, the Court may refuse the party violating such order to her or him on merits. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that appellant had not complied with the conditional order passed in SA 148/2017, has not been refuted. Taking these facts into consideration, the Ld. Presiding Officer, rightly dismissed the stay application.
10. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
[Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 28th January , 2025)
Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellant's appeal challenging the dismissal of a stay application should be allowed given non-compliance with a prior conditional order.
Whether the DTAP had cause to interfere with the DRT's finding of no procedural irregularity by the Respondent Bank.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of IndiaExplained¶21
2007 (2) D.R.T.C 401 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. R. Chitra
The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Nadanthai Branch
The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Salem
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
