Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SA challenging the sale notice as infructuous since no sale occurred due to lack of bidders, and directed payment of Rs.2000/- to the Advocate Commissioner.
No sale took place; application dismissed without costs; applicant to pay Rs.2000/- to Advocate Commissioner.
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.
1
S.A. No.333 of 2022 23.08.2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 333 of 2022
1. Latha M.
78, West Mada Street Thiruvottiyur – 600 019
2. Meganathan S. 78, West Mada Street Thiruvottiyur – 600 019 ….Applicants Vs.
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Officer Dare House 2, NSC Bose Road Parrys, Chennai – 600 001 ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicants : M/s.Rohini Ravikumar Counsel for Respondent : M/s K.J. Parthasarathy
ORDER
2
S.A. No.333 of 2022 23.08.2022
guidelines.
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2022)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
Latha M. and Meganathan S.
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.
Ganapathi K.R.K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
