Vijaya M v. Vijaya
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application filed by third party applicants (wife and son of the mortgagor). The court held they were not entitled to notice service as they were not privy to the contract and the application lacked merit.
What did the court decide?
The SARFAESI application is dismissed without costs. Interim orders granted are vacated and other IAs are closed.
What the court decided
1
S.A. 48 of 2022 22.09.2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 48 of 2022
1. Mrs.M.Vijaya
- W/o. S.Murugesan
2. Mr.M.ArunKumar S/o. S.Murugesan
Both residing at: No.1/18, Nagammal Street K.R.Nagar, Korattur Ambattur Taluk Chennai – 600 080 ….Applicants
Vs.
1. The Authorised Officer
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether third party applicants were entitled to service of possession notices?
Whether the SA was maintainable regarding third party applicants?
Whether the Tribunal could adjudicate on factual disputes regarding possession of mortgaged property?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mrs. M. Vijaya
- applicant
Mr. M. Arunkumar
- respondent
Yes Bank Ltd
- respondent
S. Murugesan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court