The DRAT dismissed an appeal filed by a bank as withdrawn after the appellant filed a memo stating the loan was closed and a closure letter was obtained, recording counsel's submission to this effect.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; parties to bear own costs.
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 DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 04th of August, 2025
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON
RA (SA) 97/2024
(SA 316/2023 before DRT -Madura)
Between
… Appellants
And
And also at VPMS Gold Palace, No.150A, Nethaji Road, Srivilliputhur–626 125.
1
…Respondents
(R3 is given up) Counsel for Appellant Bank : M/s. S. Vignesh Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 : M/s. Ramalingam and Associates
2
ORDER
When the matter is taken up, Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank submitted that the Appellant filed a Memo stating that in OTS, the Respondents remitted Rs.2.50 Crores and a loan closure letter dated 28.06.2025 was given to the Respondents. Therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw this Appeal.
Recording this statement, this Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 04th of August, 2025]
[ Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON
3
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd
S.Thangaprabhu
V.P.M.Sankaranarayanan
The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Virudhunagar District
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
