In this SARFAESI application, M/s. Arun Polymers challenged a possession order by the Madurai DRT. The court examined procedural compliance and held the order valid, dismissing the applicant's claim to set aside the possession.
The application to set aside the Physical Possession Order dated 06.09.2021 is dismissed.
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.
Fair Order
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI DATED THIS 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA
[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No. 120/2023
Between
M/s. Arun Polymers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. T. Arun Kumar, Having office at 640/2, Usilampatty Road, Kunnuvarayan Kottai Village, Batlagundu – 624 202. --- Applicant
And
This Application was heard in the presence of Mr. G. Vairava Subramanian, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. N. Dilip Kumar, Advocate for the 1st
Page 1 of 12
SA 120/2023
Respondent Bank and Mr. M.S. Shanmugasundaram, Advocate for the 3rd Respondent and upon hearing the arguments of all Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:
O R D E R
The Applicant is M/s. Arun Polymers, a PP woven bags manufacturing firm, represented by its Proprietor Mr. T. Arun Kumar. The firm had availed various credit facilities from the 1st Respondent Bank, i.e. OD/OCC on 01.09.2018 for a sum of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakhs Only), Term loan on 11.02.2015 for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), Term Loan on 04.02.2016 for a sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000/(Rupees Two Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only) and Term Loan on 29.06.2016 for a sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lakhs only). The Applicant mortgaged his properties as a collateral security for availing the credit facilities. The Applicant was servicing interest and EMI regularly to the 1st Respondent Bank till the end of 2019. Unfortunately, due to unprecedented loss in the business, the Account of the Applicant with the 1st Respondent Bank got strained. The Applicant made several requests to the 1st Respondent Bank to provide them additional time to take corrective steps to regularize the account. However, the 1st Respondent Bank initiated action against the Applicant and issued Demand Notice dated 04.09.2019 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Applicant and also to the guarantors of the credit facility. Even thereafter also the Applicant made several requests to the 1st Respondent Bank to restructure credit facilities. All the requests of the Applicant went negated by the Bank. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent Bank issued Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Applicant on 04.02.2020 taking symbolic possession of the secured assets.
The Applicant made several efforts to restore the business, however, the sudden outbreak of Covid pandemic crippled the business and gave blow to the Applicant business. At that time, the Applicant was taking best efforts to safeguard the life of 100 employees whose lives were reliant on the running of the Applicant business. At the further outset, E-Auction notices were issued on 04.02.2021, 21.04.2021, 06.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 respectively, but all of them had become infructuous. In the meanwhile, the 1st Respondent Bank obtained an order from the Ld. Chief Judicial
Page 2 of 12
SA 120/2023
Magistrate, Dindigul to obtain the possession of the properties in Crl.M.P.No. 5855/2021 dated 06.09.2021. Pursuant to the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul sale notices were issued, and immovable properties and movables were taken auction based on the E- Auction sale notice dated 03.11.2021. Subsequently, the Applicant filed Writ Petition in WP (MD) No. 22332/2021, challenging the order of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul issued in Crl.M.P.No. 5855/2021 dated 06.09.2021 and another Writ Petition in WP (MD) Nos. 22333 and 22334/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) by challenging the impugned sale notices dated 03.11.2021 and all Writ Petitions are dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court.
Consequently, the 1st Respondent Bank sold the properties of the Applicant for a sum of Rs. 6,27,33,890/- and informed the same to the Applicant vide their letter dated 21.02.2022 and through a communication dated 20.01.22, they informed that they have issued a sale certificate and confirmed the sale. Despite the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in WP (MD) No. 3558/2022 directing the parties to maintain status quo on the properties, the property in S. No. 640/2 of the Kunnavarayankottai Village of the Nilakottai has been Registered vide Doc No. 2891/22 on the file of Sub Registrar Office Batlagundu to the auction purchaser. Upon the Hon'ble High Court, granted interim order of Status Quo on 26.08.2022 and directed the Applicant to deposit Rs. 1 Crore in Escrow account within 4 weeks. Pursuant to the same, the Applicant deposited the said amount on 3.9.2022 and subsequently, by order dated 25.01.2023, the Hon'ble High Court gave a liberty to file a petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Aggrieved over the above said order of dismissal, Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P (C) No. 005098/2023 was filed by the Applicant and the same was dismissed on 20.03.2023 with liberty to file a petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within one week.
Hence, this Application is filed challenging the Order of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul dated 06.09.2021.
3. The Applicant has challenged the Sale Notice on the following Grounds:-
a. The impugned notice of the Respondent is against the law, Arbitrary and the principles of Natural Justice. b. The 1st Respondent Bank Issued Demand Notice u/s 13( 2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 04.09.2019 giving the outstanding liability. However, the details of the calculations were not given.
c. Therefore, in summary, as evidenced from the above paragraphs, it is clear that the Possession Order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul dated 06.09.2021 which was based on the demand
Page 3 of 12
SA 120/2023
notice and possession notice which is mainly suffering with defects as mentioned above.
4. The Applicant has sought the following Reliefs:-
i. To set aside the Physical Possession Order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul dated 06.09.2021 as the same is defective and not in conformity with the provisions as per the SARFAESI Act.
ii. To pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
List of documents filed on the side of the Applicant along with the Application
| S.No. | Date | Description of Documen | ts | Page No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 22.03.2023 | Fact Sheet |
A |
|
| 2. | 22.03.2023 | SARFAESI Application file Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI |
d under Act, 2002 |
1-18 |
| 3. | NA | Copy of Aadhaar and PAN Applicant |
of the | 19-20 |
| 4. | 12.09.2013 | Sanction letter from Defendant | 21-23 | |
| 5. | 31.12.2016 | Sanction letter from Defendant | 24-31 | |
| 6. | 01.09.2018 | Sanction letter from Defendant | 32-41 | |
| 7. | 04.09.2019 | DemandNotice | 42-50 | |
| 8. | 04.02.2020 | Possession Notice | 51-53 | |
| 9. | 26.08.2022 | Order of the Hon'ble High Madras (Madurai Bench) in 3558 of 2022 and 22332 & 2021 |
Court of WP (MD) 22333 of |
54-57 |
| 10. | 03.09.2022 | Payment receipts for the paym by theApplicant |
ent made | 58-59 |
| 11. | 29.09.2022 | Order of the Hon'ble High Madras (Madurai Bench) in 3558 of 2022 |
Court of WP (MD) |
60-61 |
| 12. | 25.01.2023 | Order of the Hon'ble High Madras (Madurai Bench) in 22332 & 22333 of 2021 |
Court of WP (MD) |
62-69 |
| 13. | 20.03.2023 | Order passed by the Hon'ble Court in SLP (C) No. 5098 of 20 |
Supreme 23 |
70-71 |
| 14. | 06.09.2021 | Impugned order of Ld. Chie Magistrate, Dindigul dated 06.0 |
f Judicial 9.2021 |
72-79 |
| 15. | 22.03.2023 | Vakalat | 80-81 |
Page 4 of 12
SA 120/2023
5. On the other hand, the 1st Respondent Bank appeared and filed their Reply Statement along with type set of paper stating therein that the Applicant herein is the proprietor of M/s. Arun Polymers. The 1st Applicant is engaged in manufacturing Polypropylene (PP) woven sacks which is used as packing material. The Applicant had approached the Respondent Bank in the year 2013 and availed credit facility. The same was enhanced and renewed periodically. The Applicants had availed an Open Cash Credit facility of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakhs only) to meet their business working capital requirements and subsequently Term Loan-I facility of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), Term Loan-II of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only) and Term LoanIII of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lakhs only) for the purpose of construction of factory building and to purchase machineries for their factory.
Mr. P. Thangavelu father of the Applicant stood as the guarantor for the credit facility availed by the Applicant. The Applicant had entered into Hypothecation Agreement with the Respondent Bank and thereby he had hypothecated the stocks and machineries in favour of the Respondent Bank with regard to the credit facilities availed. The Applicant created equitable mortgage over his property by Deposit of Title Deeds dated 13.09.2013 and Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds was made in Doc. No. 3329/2013, Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds was made in Doc. No. 2737/2014 dated 12.08.2014 and Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds for additional limits and the same was registered with SRO Batlagundu as Doc. No. 499/2015 dated 13.02.2015. P. Thangavelu created Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds for additional limits and the same was registered with SRO Dindigul Joint-II as Doc No. 677/2015 dated 13.02.2015. Further, the Applicant and P. Thangavelu created Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds for additional limits and the same was registered with SRO Dindigul Joint-II as Doc No. 527/2016 dated 11.02.2016. The Applicant and P. Thangavelu again created Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds for additional limits and the same was registered with SRO Dindigul Joint-II as Doc No. 68/2017 dated 10.01.2017.
The Respondent Bank further submitted that the Applicants had bifurcated the funds and the borrower had defaulted and failed to operate the Overdraft facility as agreed and promised. The Applicants had failed to submit the annual stock statements to the 1st Respondent Bank and that there was deficient in the quantum of available stocks. Despite sufficient opportunity, borrower failed to regularize the cash credit and term loan account, with no other alternative the loan account was classified as Non Performing Asset on
Page 5 of 12
SA 120/2023
30.06.2019. Thereafter, Demand Notice was issued on 04.09.2019 to the borrower and guarantor. But, they had refused to accept the notice. Hence, the Demand Notice was published in English and Tamil daily on 16.10.2019. The Applicant had not raised any objection on the Demand Notice dated 04.09.2019. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent Bank had issued statutory 13(4) Possession Notice dated 05.02.2020 and the same was published in two newspapers DINATHANTHI (Tamil) & INDIAN EXPRESS (English) on 08.02.2020. The said notice is also delivered upon the borrowers and guarantors and it is also affixed in the property.
The 1st Respondent Bank further submitted that SA No. 97 of 2021 was filed before Hon'ble DRT, Madurai, challenging sale notice dated 04.02.2021 pertaining to (Item Nos. 1,2,3,4,7). Interim Stay Application IA No. 391 of 2021 in SA No. 97 of 2021 was dismissed on merits by DRT on 11.03.2021. The said order has become final. Further, 1st Respondent Bank filed Application u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.M.P.No. 5855 of 2021, before the Learned CJM, Dindigul to take physical possession of the subject property (Item No. 1, 4 & 7) and the same is allowed on 06.09.2021. And, FIR in Crime No. 407 of 2021 is registered on the file of Inspector of Police Viruveedu Police Station, under Sections 143, 147, 341 & 353 of IPC, for committing criminal acts and restraining the Advocate Commissioner on 18.10.2021 from taking physical possession as per Ld. CJM, Dindigul order dated 06.09.2021 in Crl.M.P.No. 5855 of 2021.
Then, the Applicant filed Writ Petition in WP (MD) No. 22332 of 2021 challenging order dated 06.09.2021 of Ld. CJM, Dindigul & WP (MD) No. 22333 of 2021 Challenging auction sale notice dated 03.11.2021 & WP (MD) No. 3558 of 2022 is filed challenging the sale notice dated 02.02.2022 and to stay all further proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) had passed a common order dated 25.01.2023 disposed the Writ Petitions directing the petitioners to approach the DRT. Challenging the same, the Applicant had filed SLP Nos. 5098 & 5099 of 2023 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same was dismissed directing the petitioners to approach the DRT within one week.
The 1st Respondent Bank further submitted that finally, the Applicant has filed this Application along with petition to stay the Order of 2nd Respondent dated 06.09.2021. The Application is filed on false and baseless grounds and it is not maintainable. The Respondent Bank had obtained valuation report from the approved valuer as per the Act. The Applicant had not produced any reports to substantiate the ground raised. The OTS proposal offered by the bank is declined and the same is communicated to the Applicant. The Applicant had diverted the funds to Karur Vysya Bank,
Page 6 of 12
SA 120/2023
Batlagundu & TMB, Sevagampatti Branch. The Applicant further started a new company on 10.11.2021 in same premises Item No. 1 , Secured Asset named as Arun Packks, by opening a Current Account No. 300150310875030 with TMB, Sevagampatti Branch.
The 1st Respondent Bank has denied all the facts and grounds that are raised by the Applicant in para i to xvi, which are as follows:-
i. The 1st Respondent Bank had replied to all the communications made by the borrower.
ii. The 1st Respondent Bank is under statutory requirement to take earnest attempts to recover the loan outstanding. The Possession as well as the sale notice is perfectly valid and sustainable in law and there is absolutely no error in the said notices.
iii. There is a loan outstanding of Rs. 7,82,95,202.72 as on 31.3.23 towards the loan accounts of the Applicant.
iv. The money borrowed by the Applicants is the money of general public. The Applicants had bifurcated the credit facility and failed to operate the loan account as agreed and promised.
v. The bank had followed the due procedure prescribed under the code and the allegation to the contra is false.
vi. The borrower had not raised any substantial plea before this Hon'ble Tribunal for consideration and their only intention seems to delay the proceedings and avoid paying the loan amount to the bank.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the IA and SARFAESI Application with costs and thus render justice.
List of documents filed on the side of the 1st Respondent Bank along with the Typeset of papers
| Sl. No. | Date | Particulars | Page No. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.01.2023 | Order in W.P(MD) No. 22332 & 22333 of 2023 |
1 |
| 2 | 19.07.2023 | Order in W.P(MD)No.5840 of2023 | 13 |
| 3 | 16.05.2023 | Memo filed in Crl M.P No.5855 of 2021 | 18 |
6. The brief averments of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent/Auction Purchaser are as follows:-
The SARFAESI Application liable to be rejected in limine, since the same is barred by limitation. The order of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul is
Page 7 of 12
SA 120/2023
passed on 06.09.2021 and the appeal ought to have been filed within 45 days from the date of order i.e., on or before 21.10.2021. The Applicant and others had resisted the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate in taking physical possession of the property on 18.10.2021. Even assuming from the date of knowledge, i.e. 18.10.2021, the SARFAESI Application under section 17 ought to have been filed on or before 02.12.2021. Whereas the Applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of filing Writ Petition only on 13.12.2021. The Hon'ble High Court while dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the Applicant held that there is no merit in the Writ Petition and given an option to the Petitioner either to get refund of an amount of Rs. 1 crore which was deposited by him or to file an Application u/s 17 before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence as per law, the present SARFAESI Application is barred by limitation. On this ground itself, the present SARFAESI Application deserves to be rejected in limine. Since, the Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition seeking for refund of the amount deposited by them, the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court does not exist for the Petitioner to file the present Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
It is further submitted by the 3rd Respondent that the SARFAESI Application became infructuous as the Auction Sale had taken place on 22.11.21 and the sale certificate has been registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar's Office on 24.02.2022 and numbered as Document No. 2891 of 2022. As on date, no challenge to the Auction sale held on 22.11.2021. The 2nd Respondent/Auction Purchaser participated in the auction conducted by the 1st Respondent by paying 10% towards EMD and in the auction conducted on 22.11.2021, bid for a sum of Rs. 1,95,10,000/- was accepted and 25% of the bid amount was paid immediately and deposited the entire sale consideration and sale certificate was issued on 21.02.2022 and registered with concerned SRO on 24.02.2022. The 1st Respondent informed the Petitioner that sale was confirmed.
Further, the Petitioner had not approached this Hon'ble Tribunal within 3 weeks from the date of order which was challenged by the petitioner, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed by order dated 20.03.2023, however mentioned that it will be open to the petitioner to file an Application U/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act within 7 days from the date of order. And the 3rd Respondent is strongly denied that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP with liberty to file a petition before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal within one week.
Page 8 of 12
SA 120/2023
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above petition with exemplary cost as the same is devoid of merits and render justice.
7. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:-
WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO GET THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR?
8 . Having heard the parties and after going through the documents produced by the Applicant as well as the Respondents, I find the following:
Admittedly, the Applicant is the proprietor of M/s. Arun Polymers, who has availed credit facilities in the year 2013 for a sum of Rs. 12,00,00,000/(Rupees Twelve Crore only) from the 1st Respondent Bank to meet their business working capital requirements. Initially, the Applicant was regular in repayment of loan amount, however, due to loss in the business and COVID-19 Pandemic situation, he could not repay the loan amount as promised. As per the Reply Statement given by the 1st Respondent Bank, the total loan outstanding as on 31.03.2023 is Rs. 7,82,95,202.72p. (Rupees Seven Crore Eighty Two Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred and Two and paise Seventy Two only). Hence, the 1st Respondent Bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the loan account of the Applicant. There is no denial by the Applicant that he had bifurcated the funds and he had defaulted and failed to operate the Overdraft facility as agreed and promised. It is also not denied by the Applicant that he had failed to submit the annual stock statements to the Respondent Bank and that there was deficient in the quantum of available stocks. Despite sufficient opportunity, borrower failed to regularize the cash credit and term loan account, hence the 1st Respondent Bank with no other alternative has classified the loan account as Non Performing Asset on 30.06.2019. Thereafter, the Demand Notice u/s
13(2) was issued on 04.09.2019, but, they had refused to accept the notice. Hence, the Demand Notice was published in English and Tamil daily newspaper on 16.10.2019, which is evident from perusal of type set of papers at page no. 10 & 11 produced by the 1st Respondent Bank. The Applicant has stated that after receiving the Demand Notice they had given several requests to the 1st Respondent Bank, but he has not produced any chit of paper in support of his contention. Further, the 1st Respondent Bank has submitted that since the Applicant had not raised any objection on the Demand Notice dated 04.09.2019, they issued statutory 13(4) Possession Notice dated 05.02.2020 and the same was published in two newspapers on 08.02.2020, which is also attached with the type set of papers. The said
Page 9 of 12
SA 120/2023
notice is also delivered upon the borrowers and guarantors and it is also affixed in the property. Further, the 1st Respondent Bank had issued 12 Nos. of Sale Notices & had sold the properties in item Nos. 1 & 7 vide its 9th Sale Notice dated 03.11.2021 & sale held on 22.11.2021 to the successful bidder namely M/s. Kumars Polybag India Private Limited, Tiruchirapalli and they had deposited the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,95,10,000/and the Sale Certificate was issued on 21.02.2022 and the same is registered with the concerned SRO on 24.02.2022 & Item Nos. 2 & 3 vide its 10th Sale Notice dated 25.11.2021 & sale held on 30.12.2021 to the successful bidder namely Chandrasekar & J. Leo marshal.
i. On perusal of the documents provided by the Applicant, I find that the contention of the Applicant that the details of the calculations were not given along with the Demand Notice is not tenable for the reason and there is no such stipulation in the Act/Rules.
ii. This SA has been filed by the Applicant challenging the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 06.09.2021 for taking Physical Possession of the Secured Asset. The Applicant has not specifically pointed out any procedural irregularity in the order passed by the 2nd Respondent. The only issue raised by the Applicant is that the order passed by the 2nd Respondent is defective and not in conformity with the provisions as per the SARFAESI Act. The Provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not mandate the requirement of sending notice to the Borrowers or the Guarantors or personal hearing prior to passing of order for taking Physical Possession of the secured asset. A perusal of the copy of the order dated 06.09.2021 would show that the 2nd Respondent has passed the order after having been satisfied with the averments stated in the Application filed by the 1st Respondent Bank. This Tribunal does not find any irregularity in the order passed by the 2nd Respondent.
The Applicant has failed to prove the allegations that the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent Bank are against the SARFAESI Act and Rules. The Possession as well as the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul order dated 06.09.2021 is perfectly valid and sustainable in law. In view of the foregoing reasons this Tribunal holds that the Applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. Thus this point is answered.
In the result the SA No.120/2023 is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th November, 2023.
sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER
Page 10 of 12
SA 120/2023
Dictated & Corrected by me
sd/-
(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER
Typed by me
(D. Krishnaveni, PA)
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES – PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT
The schedule of Properties that were included in the Order dated 06.09.2021 is as follows:
Property 1:- All the part and parcel of the Landed Properties at Dindigul Registration District, Batlagundu Sub-Registration District, Dindigul District, Nillakottai Taluk, Kunnuvarankottai Village in Patta No. 1618, 2 Acres 94 Cents in Survey No. 640/2,
Bounded By:
East : Boobalan Land West : Sherifa Land and Cart Track
North : Velan Semban Land South : Cart Track
Building constructed therein with Galvanized sheet roof Comprising Machinery Hall,
Labour Quarters, Varandha, Generator cum-Power Room, Office room Verandha and Toilet Block.
Property 2:-
All the part and parcel of the Property in Dindigul Registration District, Dindigul Joint II Sub-Registration District, Dindigul District, Dindigul Taluk, Chettinaickenpatti Village, in Patta No. 4809, Old Survey No. 678A/2 an extent of 3 Acres 40 Cents out of this, in the Eastern Side 1 Acre 70 Cents out of this, in the Eastern Side Corner 42 Cents Now Sub-Division New Survey No. 678A/28A1 , Sri Venkatachalam Nagar, Plot No. 21, House with Vacant Site, House bearing Door Nos. 5582 & 5582A ,
Page 11 of 12
SA 120/2023
It measuring about 1st Thakku
East – West Northern side 411/2 feet, Southern side 431/2 feet
North – South Eastern side 541/2 feet, Western side 413/4 feet
Total 2045 Sq.ft.
2nd Thakku
East – West both sides 241/2 feet, North – South Both sides 40 feet
Total 970 Sq. ft.
3rd Thakku
East – West Northern side 241/2 feet, Southern side 28 feet
North – South Eastern side 0 feet, Western side 141/2 feet
Total 176 Sq.ft.
Altogether 1st , 2nd & 3rd Thakku Total Extent 3191 Sq.ft. Equal to 296.45 Sq.mts.
Boundaries
North – Plot No. 22 South : Common Odai & 231/2 feet East – West Road; East – 20 feet North – South Road West : Mangammal site.
sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER
Page 12 of 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant is entitled to relief to set aside the Physical Possession Order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Whether the Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) lacked calculation details violating statutory requirements.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Arun Polymers
The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, SME Dindigul Branch
Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul District
M/s. Kumars Polybag India Private Limited
Seema Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
