Mohanan v. versus Indian Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRT dismissed the applicants' securitization application seeking to set aside steps taken under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank complied with Section 14(1) requirements despite applicants' dissatisfaction with the authenticated status of their Objection Affidavit.
What did the court decide?
The Securities Application was dismissed with no costs awarded to the applicant.
What the court decided
Fair Order
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM
DATED THIS 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER
S.A No. 26 of 2023
Between
- Mohanan V., Varikottil House, Angadipuram P.O., Malappuram – 679 321.
- Vijayan A., Aranjikkal House Cheerattamanna, Valambur P.O., Perinthalmanna, Malappuram -679 322.
- Ramesh Babu T., Theruvathodi House, Pathaikara P.O., Perinthalmanna, Malappuram – 679 322. --- Applicants
And
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Perinthalmanna Branch, XVVV/609/60, Tharayil Trade Centre, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram – 679 322.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether all mandatory requirements under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act were complied with by the bank.
Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation for alleged procedural lapses in possession proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mohanan V., Varikottil House, Angadipuram P.O., Malappuram
- applicant
Vijayan A.
- applicant
Ramesh Babu T.
- respondent
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Perinthalmanna Branch
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court