Dismissed

Arun Polymers v. Canara Bank

DRT28 Nov 2023SA/121/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a sale notice dated 03.11.2021. The court held that the applicant failed to substantiate claims of under-valuation or violation of SARFAESI rules with documentary evidence, finding the bank's procedure valid.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to set aside the e-auction notice and restore possession to the applicant was dismissed. No costs.

Arun Polymers versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI DATED THIS 28^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶3

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA No. 121/2023

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s. Arun Polymers, Rep. by its Proprietor, T. Arun Kumar, Having office at 640/2, Usilampatty Road, Kunnuvarayan Kottai Village, Batlagundu – 624 202. --- Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, SME Dindigul Branch, 67/7-4, Municipal Colony, Nehruji Nagar, Dindigul District – 624 001.

¶9

M/s. Kumars Polybag India Private Limited, Represented by its Director, K. Ravikumar, S/o. Kalyanasundaram, Door No. C2/644, Bell Township, Kailasapuram, Tiruchirappalli – 620 014. --- Respondents

¶10

This Application was heard in the presence of Mr. G. Vairava Subramanian, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. N. Dilip Kumar, Advocate for the 1^st Respondent Bank and Mr. M.S. Shanmugasundaram, Advocate for the 2^nd Respondent and upon hearing the arguments of all Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

Page 1 of 13

SA 121/2023

O R D E R

This Application has been filed under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by the Applicants praying to set aside the E- Auction Notice dated 03.11.2021 issued by the 1^st Respondent Bank against the Applicant for the schedule of properties of the main SA and quash the same and restore encumbrance free possession to the Applicant and pass such further or other orders.

¶15

The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicant are as follows:-

¶16

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 1^st 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 1^st Respondent Bank till the end of 2019. Unfortunately, due to unprecedented loss in the business, the Account of the Applicant with the 1^st Respondent Bank got strained. The Applicant made several requests to the 1^st Respondent Bank to provide them additional time to take corrective steps to regularize the account. However, the 1^st 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 1^st Respondent Bank to restructure credit facilities. All the requests of the Applicant went negated by the Bank. Thereafter, the 1^st 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.

¶17

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 1^st Respondent Bank obtained an order from the Ld. Chief Judicial 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

¶18

Page 2 of 13

¶19

SA 121/2023

¶20

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. Consequently, the 1^st Respondent Bank sold the properties of the Applicant 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.

¶21

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 after taking note of the conduct of the 1^st Respondent Bank Officials and the Purchaser, 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. The deposit was reported before the Hon'ble Court 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. At the further outset, noting the irregularities and illegalities committed by the 1^st Respondent Bank the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) by the order dated 25.01.2023, dismissed the Writ Petition. 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.

¶22

Hence, this Application is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 03.11.2021 issued by the 1^st Respondent Bank.

¶23

3. The Applicant has challenged the Sale Notice on the following Grounds:-

¶24

a. The impugned notice of the Respondent is against the law, Arbitrary and the principles of Natural Justice.

¶25

b. The 1^st Respondent Bank is trying to undervalue the secured asset at a very lower price based on the 'old valuation report. The Respondent Bank has not valued the properties after the issuance of 13(4) notice thereby violating Rule 5 of Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.

¶26

Page 3 of 13

¶27

SA 121/2023

¶28

c. It is further stated that from the first look it will appear that the rule emphasizes obtaining valuation of the property and then fix the reserve price and it does not expressly talk about the repeated auctions, and the frequency of valuation.

¶29

d. Thus it is crystal clear that the reserve price arrived at by the Authorised Officer is too low, arbitrary and does not reflect the true market value of the property, thereby not in conformity with the Rule 8(5) of SI(E) RULES and for this reason alone, the auction sale should be set aside.

¶30

e. The total sale value of the said properties is only Rs. 6,19,33,890/including the Machinery sold in the auction notice dated 03.11.2021, in which the Applicant offered to pay Rs. 8 Crores as a onetime settlement, but the 1^st Respondent Bank did not accept the same and rejected the requests of the Applicant.

¶31

f. So, once the foundation itself is not correct, all the superstructure built based on that also would fall automatically. So, the Respondent Bank clearly violated the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, and hence the possession notice and all the SARFAESI proceedings including the demand notice are to be struck down.

¶32

g. Therefore, in summary, as evidenced from the above paragraphs, it is clear that the auction notice dated 03.11.2021 which was based on the demand notice and possession notice which is mainly suffering with defects as mentioned above.

¶33

4. The Applicant has sought the following Reliefs:-

¶34

i. To set aside the e-auction notice dated 03.11.2021 which is not in conformity with the provisions as per the SARFAESI Act.

¶35

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.

¶36

List of documents filed on the side of the Applicant along with the

¶37

Application

¶38

S.No.	Date	Descriptionof Documents	PageNo.
1.	22.03.2023	Fact Sheet	A
2.	22.03.2023	SARFAESI Application filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002	1-19
3.	NA	Copy of Aadhaar and PAN of the Applicant	20-21
4.	12.09.2013	Sanction letter from Defendant	22-24
5.	31.12.2016	Sanction letter from Defendant	25-32
6.	01.09.2018	Sanction letter from Defendant	33-42

¶39

Page 4 of 13

¶40

SA 121/2023

¶41

7.	04.09.2019	Demand Notice		43-51
8.	04.02.2020	Possession Noti	ce	52-54
9.	26.08.2022	Order of the Madras (Madu 3558 of 2022 2021	Hon'ble High rai Bench) in and 22332 &	Court of WP (MD) 22333 of 55-58
10.	03.09.2022	Payment receip by the Applican	ts for the paym t	ent made 59-60
11.	29.09.2022	Order of the Madras (Madu 3558 of2022	Hon'ble High rai Bench) in	Court of WP (MD) 61-62
12.	25.01.2023	Order of the Madras (Madu 22332 & 22333	Hon'ble High rai Bench) in of2021	Court of WP (MD) 63-70
13.	20.03.2023	Order passed CourtinSLP(C	by the Hon'ble )No.5098 of20	Supreme 23 71-72
14.	03.11.2021	Impugned sale	notice	73-84
15.	22.03.2023	Vakalat		85

¶42

5. On the other hand, the 1^st 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 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 Applicant 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.

¶43

The 1^st Respondent Bank further submitted that Mr. P. Thangavelu father of the Applicant stood as the guarantor. The Applicant had entered into Hypothecation Agreement with the 1^st Respondent Bank and thereby he had hypothecated the stocks and machineries in favour of the 1^st 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

¶44

Page 5 of 13

¶45

SA 121/2023

¶46

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.

¶47

The 1^st Respondent Bank further submitted that the Applicant had bifurcated the funds and the borrower had defaulted and failed to operate the Overdraft facility as agreed and promised. The Applicant had failed to submit the annual stock statements to the 1^st 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 30.06.2019. Thereafter, Demand Notice was issued on 04.09.2019 to the borrower and guarantor and sent through registered post to the borrower and the 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 1^st Respondent Bank had issued statutory 13(4) Possession Notice dated 05.02.2020, in strict compliance with the statutory prescriptions 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. Proof of service of the possession and compliance of statutory requirement of publication in two newspapers, of which one is in vernacular and the affixture of the Possession Notice in the property are all attached in the typed set of papers.

¶48

The 1^st 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, 1^st 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

¶49

Page 6 of 13

¶50

SA 121/2023

¶51

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.

¶52

Then, the Applicant filed Writ Petition in WP (MD) No. 22332 of 2021 challenging order dated 06.09.2021 of Ld. CJM, Dindigul, to take physical possession of the subject property (Item No.1, 4 & 7 of schedule hereunder) and Writ Petition in WP (MD) No. 22333 of 2021 Challenging auction sale notice dated 03.11.2021 pertaining of the subject property (Item No. 1,2,3,4,7) and consequently permit the Petitioner to clear the dues payable by him as per OTS offer letter dated 27.08.2021 and also Writ Petition in 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.

¶53

In these circumstances the Applicants has filed the Application along with petition to stay the sale notice dated 03.11.2021. 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, 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.

¶54

The 1^st Respondent Bank has denied all the facts and grounds that are raised by the Applicants in para i to xvi, which are as follows:-

¶55

i. The 1^st Respondent Bank had replied to all the communications made by the borrower.

¶56

ii. The 1^st 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.

¶57

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.

¶58

Page 7 of 13

¶59

SA 121/2023

¶60

iv. The money borrowed by the Applicant is the money of general public. The Applicant had bifurcated the credit facility and failed to operate the loan account as agreed and promised.

¶61

v. The bank had followed the due procedure prescribed under the code and the allegation to the contra is false.

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Respondent Bank along with the Typeset of papers

¶65

Sl. No.	Date	Events	Page No.
1	04.09.2019	Demand Notice with AD cards	1
2	16.10.2019	Paper Publications of DemandNotice	10
3	05.02.2020	Possession Notice with AD cards	12
4	08.02.2020	Paper Publication of Possession Notice	17
5	05.02.2020	Photographs of symbolic possession	19
6	01.02.2021	Valuation Report	21
7	05.03.2021	Valuation Report	34
8	06.09.2021	CJM Order	50
9	20.05.2023	Panchanama	57
10	18.10.2021	CSR Receipt	64
11	19.10.2021	FIR incrimeNo. 407of2021	65

¶66

6. The brief averments of the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd Respondent/Auction Purchaser are as follows:-

¶67

The SARFAESI Application deserves to be dismissed in limine since the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts. And 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 2^nd Respondent/Auction Purchaser participated in the auction conducted by the 1^st 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 1^st Respondent informed the petitioner that sale was confirmed. The allegation of under

¶68

Page 8 of 13

¶69

SA 121/2023

¶70

valuation is denied. The allegation that the reserve price arrived at by the Authorised officer is too low, arbitrary and does not reflect the true market value is incorrect. The price fetched through the sale conducted on 03.11.2021 is on higher side compared to the market value. The Petitioner is insisting for One Time Settlement and not for redemption in entirety. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many cases held that the Courts have no power to consider the One Time Settlement. Hence the appeal may be dismissed.

¶71

7. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:-

¶72

WHETHER THE APPLICANTS ARE ENTITLED TO GET THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR?

¶73

8 . Having heard the parties and after going through the documents produced by the Applicant as well as the Respondents, I find the following:

¶74

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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st Respondent Bank. The Applicant has stated that after receiving the Demand Notice they had given several requests to the 1^st Respondent Bank, but he has not produced any chit of paper in support of his contention. Further, the 1^st Respondent Bank

¶75

Page 9 of 13

¶76

SA 121/2023

¶77

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 notice is also delivered upon the borrowers and guarantors and it is also affixed in the property. Further, the 1^st Respondent Bank had issued 12 Nos. of Sale Notices & had sold the properties in item Nos. 1 & 7 vide its 9^th Sale Notice dated 03.11.2021 & sale held on 22.11.2021 to the successful bidder namely M/s. Kumars Polybags 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 10^th Sale Notice dated 25.11.2021 & sale held on 30.12.2021 to the successful bidder namely Chandrasekar & J. Leo marshal.

¶78

A perusal of the documents provided by the Respondents shows that they have obtained Valuation Reports dated 01.02.2021 & 05.03.2021 from the Approved valuer as per the Act, after issuance of 13(4) notice. Further, the Applicant had not produced any reports to substantiate the ground raised and has failed to produce the documentary evidence in support of his claim. The allegation of under valuation and the allegation that the reserve price arrived at by the Authorised officer is too low, arbitrary and does not reflect the true market value is also not proved by the Applicant by producing any documents. The Applicant has also not proved that the price fetched through the sale conducted on 03.11.2021 is on lower side compared to the market value.

¶79

The Applicant has failed to prove the allegations that the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the 1^st Respondent Bank are against the SARFAESI Act and Rules. The Possession as well as the Sale Notice 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.

¶80

In the result the SA No.121/2023 is dismissed. No costs.

¶81

Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28^th November, 2023.

¶82

sd/-

¶83

(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶84

Page 10 of 13

¶85

SA 121/2023

¶86

Dictated & Corrected by me

¶87

sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶88

Typed by me

¶89

(D. Krishnaveni, PA)

¶90

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES – PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶91

The schedule of Properties that were included in the auction notice dated 03.11.2021 is as follows:

¶92

Property 1:- (Immovable property in the name of Mr. T. Arun Kumar):

¶93

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,

¶94

Bounded By:

¶95

East : Boobalan Land West : Sherifa Land and Cart Track

¶96

North : Velan Semban Land South : Cart Track

¶97

Building constructed therein with Galvanized sheet roof Comprising Machinery Hall, Labour Quarters, Varandha, Generator cum-Power Room, Varandha, Office room Veranda and Toilet Block.

¶98

Property 2:-

¶99

All the part and parcel of the Property at Dindigul Registration District, Batlagundu Sub-Registration District, Dindigul District, Nillakottai Taluk, Kanavaipatti Village, Survey Nos.1/4, 2/8B, 2/8C Total extent of 4 Acres 56 Cents divided the House Plot's bearing Plot No. 98, Southern side portion and Plot No. 99 Northern side Portion.

¶100

It measuring about Plot No. 98, Southern side portion

¶101

East-West : Northernside 47 feet,

¶102

Page 11 of 13

¶103

SA 121/2023

¶104

East-West : Southernside 50 feet, North-South Bothsides 46 feet, Total 2231 Sq. ft. It measuring about Plot No. 99, Northernside portion East-West : Northernside 53 feet, East-West : Southernside 54^1/2 feet, North-South Bothsides 7 feet, Total 376^1/4 Sq. ft. Bounded by: North – Plot No. 98 Northernside Portion, South - Plot No. 99 Southernside Portion, East-East-West 16 feet North – South Common Pathway, West – Survey No. 1/1A & 1/1B land.

¶105

Property 3:-

¶106

All the part and parcel of the Property at Dindigul Registration District, Batlagundu Sub-Registration District, Dindigul District, Nillakottai Taluk, Batlagundu Village & Town, Cheran Street, Gandhi Nagar, Survey No. 384/5C, Vacant site Plot No. 18.

¶107

It measuring about East-West : Northernside 23 feet, East-West : Southernside 20 feet, North-South Bothsides 30 feet, Total 645 Sq. ft. Bounded by: North – North – South 14 feet, East West Street, South – Survey No. 384/7, housesite, East- Padmavathiammal House,

¶108

Page 12 of 13

¶109

SA 121/2023

¶110

West – North – South Street.

¶111

Property 4:- (Immovable property in the name of Mr. Thangavelu.P):

¶112

Mr. P. Thangavelu

¶113

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 ,

¶114

It measuring about 1^st Thakku

¶115

East – West Northern side 41^1/2 feet, Southern side 43^1/2 feet

¶116

North – South Eastern side 54^1/2 feet, Western side 41^1/2 feet

¶117

Total 2045 Sq.ft.

¶118

2^nd Thakku

¶119

East – West both sides 24^1/2 feet, North – South Both sides 40 feet Total 970 Sq. ft.

¶120

3^rd Thakku

¶121

East – West Northern side 24^1/2 feet, Southern side 28 feet

¶122

North – South Eastern side 0 feet, Western side 14^1/2 feet

¶123

Total 176 Sq.ft.

¶124

Altogether 1^st , 2^nd & 3^rd Thakku Total Extent 3191 Sq.ft. Equal to 296.455q.meters.

¶125

Boundaries

¶126

North – Plot No. 22 South : Common Odai & 23^1/2 feet East – West Road; East – 20 feet North – South Road West : Mangammal site.

¶127

sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶128

Page 13 of 13

Arun Polymers v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Polymers v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Polymers versus Canara Bank

Arun Polymers versus Canara Bank

A Manoharan versus Canara Bank