Allowed

P K Krishnan v. The Payangadi Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT4 Dec 2024SA/400/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed Securitization Application setting aside demand notices and order for possession due to late CERSAI registration. Court held Section 26(D) mandates prior registration but allowed recovery proceedings to restart legally after defect is cured, confirming bank proved non-avowed facts.

What did the court decide?

Annexures-A5, A6 demand notices and Annexure-A2 order to be set aside. Defendants entitled to issue fresh SARFAESI notices.

P K Krishnan versus The Payangadi Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 4^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

S.A No. 400 of 2022

¶6

Between

¶7

P.K. Krishnan, S/o. Echaran, Padinhare Kattil House, Vadikkalkadavu, Madayi P.O Kannur District-670 304.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Payangadi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd . (Reg.No.C.975/RBI/UBD/KR/430P), Head Office Building, Head Office, Payangadi, Kannur District-670538, P.O. Payangadi R.S., Represented by its General Manager.

¶11

Authorised Officer, Payangadi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office Building, Head Office, Payangadi, P.O. Payangadi R.S. Kannur District – 670 358.

¶12

SA No.400 of 2022

¶13

The Branch Manager, Main Branch, Payangadi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Payangadi, P.O. Payangadi R.S. Kannur District – 670 358.

¶14

--- Defendants

¶15

This Securitization Application coming on 30.05.2024 and on 13.11.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr.C.Muralikrishnan, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Lijin Thamban, Advocate for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records and written argument notes on both sides, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Securitisation Application was filed on 24.06.2022 seeking to set aside Annexure-A2 order of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery as illegal and to declare that the properties scheduled hereunder are not liable to be proceeded under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for recovery of the dues mentioned in AnnexureA5 and A6 demand notices and to declare that the applicant is not liable to pay any amount to the defendants as demanded in AnnexureA5 and A6 demand notices and to declare that the applicant has not executed the documents exhibited as Annexure-A12 to A27 and that those documents are not binding on the applicant and his assets including the properties scheduled and to award the cost of this proceedings.

¶18

The Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant did not avail any credit facility from the 1^st defendant bank and that he has not created any mortgage of his properties in favour of the 1^st defendant bank and that the security interest has not been created over the secured asset prior to issuance of the Demand Notice and that security interest has been registered subsequently on 04.06.2024 and that therefore the mandatory requirements under the provisions of Section 26 (D) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has not been complied with and that the affidavit and petition filed by the 2^nd defendant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery did not disclose Annexure-A7 objection/representation submitted by the applicant to the 2^nd defendant in reply to Annexure-A5 and A6 Demand Notices and that the omission to mention the same amounts to suppression of material fact and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery without verifying the compliance of the

¶19

Page 2 of 14

¶20

SA No.400 of 2022

¶21

statutory requirements in respect of filing of the affidavit under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 , passed Annexure-A2 order and that hence the order is illegal and is liable to be set aside and that no notice was issued to the applicant from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery prior to passing of Annexure-A2 order and that the applicant deposited his title deeds with the 2^nd defendant bank in 2013 at the time of availing loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and that the officers of the 2^nd defendant bank in collusion with the Board of Management created forged documents using the unsigned document handed over by the applicant at the time of availment of loan of Rs.15,00,000/- in the year 2013 and that the applicant has not executed any loan documents and that the signatures found in the loan applications are not the signatures of the applicant and that refusal of the 2^nd defendant bank to provide the statement of accounts to the applicant despite of making requests, amounts to violation of the Code of Banks Commitments and that Annexure-A12 application was not signed by the applicant and that it is stated in Annexure-A12 application that the loan was required for purchase of a house and that the applicant availed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the 2^nd defendant bank and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Department of Fisheries, Kerala for construction of the house and that the details of the seller is not mentioned in Annexure-A12 application and that the description of the property in Annexure-A12 application is also incorrect and that the property shows as single plot with common boundaries in Annexure-A12 application and that it proves that the application was not submitted by the applicant and that as per Banking Practice and Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, loan cannot be sanctioned to a borrower, whose account is classified as NPA and that the document by the defendants establishes that at the time of sanction of Rs.40,00,000/-, the previous loan (SMC-328) of Rs.29,00,000/- is continuing in NPA status and that therefore the claim of the defendants with regard to sanction of Rs.40,00,000/- is false and that though the defendants contended that the loan of Rs.40,00,000/- was sanctioned on condition of closure of earlier loan, no such condition is stipulated in Annexure-A12 application and that the averment of the defendants that the applicant requested for another loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for house repair is false and that the applicant did not submit Annexure-A20 application and that Annexure-A23 cheque was not issued to the applicant and that the applicant did not avail Rs.10,00,000/- on 08.11.2011 and that the amount of loan availed on 08.11.2011 is only Rs.7,00,000/- and that since the applicant did not avail and utilize the loan amount as referred to in Annexure-A5 and A6 Demand Notices, the defendants are not entitled to recover the applicant and his assets and that the properties mentioned in Annexure-A5 and A6 Demand Notices are agricultural properties which are exempted from the purview of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that therefore, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶22

Page 3 of 14

¶23

SA No.400 of 2022

¶24

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the applicant initially availed a loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 08.10.2021 creating security interest by mortgaging 5 cents of property comprised in Sy. No.150/2 of Cherukunnu amsom desom and 10 cents of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.288/11 A of Madayi amsom, Puthiyangadi desom and that he made repayment of Rs.2,44,761/- in several installments and that on 13.01.2014 he closed the above loan account by making repayment of Rs.10,17,530/- and that thereafter he availed a loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on 05.02.2014 as loan No.ML 163 and that it was renewed and enhanced as ML 218 for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/and that he paid Rs.5,80,000/- towards the repayment of the above loan and that he availed an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- by renewing and enhancing ML 218 as SML 328 and that he made repayment of Rs.8,85,500/- in several installments and that pursuant to AnnexureA21 application submitted by him, a loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/was sanctioned and that the said amount was credited to the SB account of the applicant on 16.12.2017 as per Annexure-A14 loan transfer voucher and that since there was dues of 29,96,674/- in respect of the previous loan, the due was adjusted from the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- on 16.12.2017 itself as per Annexure-A15 and that Annexure-A16 is the challan which evidences the transfer of Rs.29,96,674/- to the loan account of the applicant and that the applicant withdrew Rs.10,00,000/- on the same day from his SB account as per Annexure-A17.

¶25

It is further submitted by the counsel for the defendants that at the request of the applicant, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned for his house repair and that he signed transfer voucher AnnexureA21 for receipt of the above said loan amount and that the applicant has signed in all the loan documents and that SA is barred by limitation and that the loan No. HLM/5 for Rs.40,00,000/- was classified as NPA on 16.02.2019 and that loan No. MLEMI/48 for Rs.10,00,000/- was classified as NPA on 08.01.2020 and that Section 23(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates registration of loan transactions with the Central Registry and that but the implementation of the registration is not mandatory for Co-operative Banks and that therefore during those periods, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court were entertaining applications even without registration certificate issued by the Central Registry and that during the year 2022 the RBI issued master directions in respect of Securitization of Standard Asses and that thereafter the Co-operative Banks were strictly following the procedure for registration of the secured assets with the Central Registry and that the Enforcement of Security Interest & Recovery of Debts Loss & Miscellaneous Provision (Amendment) Act, 2016 came into force on 12.08.2016 for making amendment in the SARFAESI Act and that therefore the contention of

¶26

Page 4 of 14

¶27

SA No.400 of 2022

¶28

the applicant that Security Interest was not created with the Central Registry and that hence the defendants cannot resort to the remedies under the SARFAESI Act is unsustainable and that however, the security interest of the applicant was registered on 07.07.2022 and that even if there is delay in registration, the same can be rectified by payment of fine and that non-registration of the mortgage ipso-facto does not take away the right of the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act and that therefore the S.A may be dismissed with cost to this defendants.

¶29

Annexure-A13 which is the copy of the loan transfer voucher produced by the applicant evidences the availment of the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- on 16.12.2017 by the applicant. There is also an endorsement in Annexure-A13 that the aforesaid amount was transferred to the SB Account of applicant. Annexure-A14 is the copy of SB Account details of the applicant wherein the credit of the principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- on 16.12.2017 is reflected.

¶30

On perusal of Annexure-A15 which is copy of the transfer voucher shows that upon payment of Rs.29,96,674/- loan account SML-328 was closed on 16.12.2017. In Annexure-A16 which is copy of challan No.726390 reflects the payment of Rs.29,96,674/- towards the principal. Annexure-A17, which is the copy of withdrawal slip, strengthens the contention of the defendants that the applicant withdrew a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶31

Annexure-A21 which is copy of transfer voucher evidences transfer of the loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 09.09.2019 to the SB Account of the applicant. The applicant has also acknowledged the above receipt of the amount by putting his signature in AnnexureA21. Annexure-A22 is the challan which shows the transfer of the aforesaid amount to the SB account of the applicant. Annexure-A23 is the copy of the cheque bearing No.017311. It was presented by the applicant to the defendant bank for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.6,48,000/-.

¶32

Though the applicant has disputed his signatures found in Annexure-A13 to A17 and A21 to A23 and other documents produced by him, he has not raised the above issue in Annexure-A7 objection dated 29.09.2020 sent on his behalf to the 2^nd defendant. However he has averred in Annexure-A7 that the Bank obtained his signatures in various papers and documents on various occasions. On perusal and comparison of his admitted signatures found in the vakalath given to his Advocate and also in the S.A with the signatures found in the aforesaid documents shows that these signatures are the signatures of the applicant. The applicant having signed the aforesaid documents are estopped from contending now that he signed in various papers and documents. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that, he did

¶33

Page 5 of 14

¶34

SA No.400 of 2022

¶35

not avail any credit facility from the 3^rd defendant bank as mentioned in Annexure-A5, A6 demand notices and Annexure-A8 reply notice and that he has not executed any loan documents in favour of the defendant bank is absolutely incorrect.

¶36

The applicant has produced Annexure-A10 copy of the income certificate issued by the Village Officer of Madayi village in order to prove his claim that he has no repayment capacity to repay the amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. It is stated in Annexure-A10 that P.K. Krishnan’s annual family income from all source is Rs.2,400/-. Once it is proved that the applicant has availed credit facility from the 3^rd defendant bank upon creation of security interest over his immovable property it is immaterial to prove the repaying capacity of the applicant towards the loan due. No reliance can be placed upon Annexure-A10 to disprove the repaying capacity of the applicant.

¶37

In Annexure-A6 demand notice it is clearly mentioned that the applicant has mortgaged his immovable property described thereunder as security for availment of a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 09.09.2019 under loan No.ML-EMI 48 for construction of house. The applicant has not specifically refuted the above contention in his objection, Annexure-A7 sent to the 3^rd defendant bank. Further he has admitted the mortgage of his property in Annexure-A7. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any substance in the submission of the applicant that he has not created security interest for the availment of credit facility with the defendant bank.

¶38

The applicant has not produced any material before this Tribunal to prove his contention that one of the secured assets is agricultural property. He has not produced any supporting document to prove his above contention. In Annexure-A7 objection he has not raised the aforesaid issue. Therefore it is evident that the contention of the applicant that the secured asset is agricultural property is only an afterthought. Hence the above contention of the applicant is absolutely false.

¶39

In Annexure-A5 and A6 demand notices, it is clearly stated that due to the default in repayment of the loan, the account was classified as NPA. In Annexure-A7 objection the applicant has not refuted the above content of the demand notices. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to raise the above plea in the S.A.

¶40

Though, the 3^rd defendant bank has not produced any documents except Annexure-R1 (A), it has proved its claim with regard to availment of credit facilities upon creation of security interest over the immovable property of the applicant and the default in repayment of the outstanding loan due through the documents produced by the applicant along with the S.A.

¶41

Page 6 of 14

¶42

SA No.400 of 2022

¶43

The main issue which is to be decided in the SA is as to whether the measures initiated by the defendant bank under SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder is sustainable on account of its failure to get the security interest registered with the CERSAI prior to initiation of the measures. The defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Thalassery and filed application, AnnexureA3 and affidavit Annexure-A4 in CMP No.2776/2021 on 13.10.2021. Annexure-A2 order came to be passed on 23.10.2021 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Indisputably, security interest over the immovable property offered as a collateral security by the applicant was registered with the Central Registry only on 07.07.2022, as evidenced from the perusal of Annexure-R1(A), copy of Asset ID Based Search Report produced by the defendants.

¶44

The provisions of Section 26 D of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates that no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise the right of enforcement of securities under Chapter III unless the security interest created in its favour by the borrower has been registered with the Central Registry. It cannot be disputed that the aforesaid provision of the Act came into effect from 24.01.2020 pursuant to issuance of the notification No.SO.4619 (E) dated 26.12.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance in the Gazette of India.

¶45

In the written argument note submitted by the counsel for defendants, it is contended that Section 23 (1) mandates registration of transaction of securitization before the Central Registry and that but implementation of registration was not mandatory in respect of the Co-operative Banks and that during the year 2022 the RBI issued direction that Co-operative Bank shall strictly follow the procedure of the registration of the secured asset with the Central Registry. The defendants have not produced the copy of the aforesaid circular of the RBI. In any event, when the statute ie., Section 26 D of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates compulsory registration of the security interest with the Central Registry, the above said circular cannot be acted upon.

¶46

In Goverdhan Prasad Atal Vs. Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and others [2021 KHC Online 2202] relied on by the counsel for the applicant, the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court has held that respondent bank cannot be allowed to proceed with the impugned notice dated 21.11.2018 issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 since security interest was registered with Central Registry only on 30.11.2019 more than an year after issuance of the said notice.

¶47

Page 7 of 14

¶48

SA No.400 of 2022

¶49

In Bank of Baroda Vs. Umang Gyanchandani (2021) ibclaw.in 105 DRAT relied on by the counsel for the defendants, the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench has held as follows :

¶50

“Although it is true that the loan was sanctioned on 26.03.2012 and the mortgage was registered with CERSAI on 24.06.2015, but there is no impediment in the SARFAESI Act that the Bank cannot proceed under the SARFAESI Act, without registration with CERSAI. Further, the registration is being made in order to protect the rights of the bank as a proof of mortgage. Thus in no way it causes any prejudice to the borrower-mortgagor, if not registered in time.”

¶51

This Tribunal is of the considered view that the above judgment relied on by the defendants cannot be made applicable to the present case at hand for the reason that the above judgment was delivered on 04.03.2021, ie., later than the judgment delivered on 02.06.2020 by the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court and also for the reason that the aforesaid judgment is not referred to in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench.

¶52

Indisputably, demand notices Annexure-A5 and A6 were issued by the defendants on 13.08.2020 and the defendants filed AnnexureA3 application and A4 affidavit in CMP No. 2776/2021 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery on 13.10.2021 and Annexure-A2 order came to be passed on 23.10.2021. It cannot be disputed that the aforesaid measures were initiated only prior to registration of the security interest with the Central Registry as per Annexure-R1 (A).

¶53

Therefore, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that since security interest over the secured asset was not registered with the Central Registry prior to issuance of the demand notices and measures initiated under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, Annexures-A5 and A6 demand notices and Annexure-A2 order are liable to be set aside. However, this Tribunal holds that the defendants have proved their case that the applicant after having availed credit facilities, defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due.

¶54

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is entitled to get the relief of setting aside Annexure-A5 and A6 demand notices dated 13.08.2020 and Annexure-A2 order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Thalassery in CMP No. 2776/2021.

¶55

Page 8 of 14

¶56

SA No.400 of 2022

¶57

In the result, S.A No.400 of 2022 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

However, it is made clear that there shall be no bar for the defendants to issue any fresh notice under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 against the applicant in accordance with law so as to realise the outstanding loan due from him.

¶59

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4^th day of December, 2024.

¶60

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 9 of 14

SA No.400 of 2022

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES

¶65

Item No.1

¶66

District : Kannur Sub District : Payangadi Taluk : Kannur Village : Cherukunnu Extent : 10 cents ( 6 + 4 ) Re. Sy. No. : 288/11A Old Sy. No. No. : 292/5 Classification of land : Nilam (Paddy land – agricultural land)

¶67

Description

¶68

All that part and parcel of property having an extent of 10 cents in Re.Sy. No.288/11A of Cherukunnu village, Kannur District in the name of P.K. Krishnan covered under Sale Deed No.2616/2009 of SRO Payangadi.

¶69

Boundaries

¶70

East : Agricultural land/Paddy land (Nilam) belong to Hamsa North : Agricultural land/Paddy land (Nilam) belong to Othenan West : Agricultural land/Paddy land (Nilam) belong to Ambu South : Agricultural land/Paddy land (Nilam) belong to Ambu and children of Raman.

Page 10 of 14

SA No.400 of 2022

Item No.II

District : Kannur Sub District : Payangadi Taluk : Kannur (Presently Payyannur) Village : Madayi Extent : 5 cents Re. Sy. No. : 150/2A Old Sy. No. No. : 114/1 Classification of land : Nilam

¶75

Description

¶76

All that part and parcel of property having an extent of 5 cents and the house in Re.Sy. No.150/2A of Madayi village, Kannur District in the name of P.K. Krishnan covered by Sale Deed No.1413/2008.

¶77

Boundaries

¶78

East : Panchayat Road North : Property of Kunju Mohammed West : Property of Abdul Nazar South : Property of Abdulrahman

¶79

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶80

Page 11 of 14

¶81

SA No.400 of 2022

¶82

List of documents filed by the Applicant along with the S.A.

¶83

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	23.06.2022	True copy of the judgment in W.P (C) No. 27988/2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-A1
2.	23.10.2021	True copy of the order in CMP No.2776/2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate CourtThalassery.	Annexure-A2
3.	13.10.2021	True copy of the application/petition in CMP No.2776/2021 filed by the 2^nd defendant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate CourtThalassery.	Annexure-A3
4.	13.10.2021	True copy of the affidavit in CMP No.2776/2021 filed by the 2^nd defendant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate CourtThalassery.	Annexure-A4
5.	13.08.2020	True copy of the Demand Notice in respect of loan No.HLM-5 issued by 2^nd defendant to the applicant with its Englishtranslation.	Annexure-A5
6.	13.08.2020	True copy of the Demand Notice in respect of loan No.MLEMI-48 issued by 2^nddefendant to the applicant with its Englishtranslation.	Annexure-A6
7.	29.09.2020	True copy of the objection submitted by the applicant through his lawyer Mr.K.Kuttikrishnan along with postal Acknowledgment card, along with its Englishtranslation.	Annexure-A7
8.	16.11.2020	True copy of the reply issued by the 2^nd defendant along with its English translation.	Annexure-A8
9.	---	True copy of the petition in CMP 1423/2021 filed by the applicant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyanur along with its English translation.	Annexure-A9
10.	07.02.2020	True copy of the income certificate No.45703393 issued by the Village Officer Madayi village to theapplicant.	Annexure-A10

¶84

Page 12 of 14

¶85

SA No.400 of 2022

¶86

11.	10.06.2022	True copy of the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P (C)No.27988/2021.	Annexure-A11
12.	---	True copy of the application submitted by theapplicant.	Annexure-A12
13.	16.12.2017	True copy of the loan transfer voucher of Rs.40,00,000/-.	Annexure-A13
14.	16.12.2017	True copy of the Chalan No.726397 transferring Rs.40,00,000/- to the SB account oftheapplicant.	Annexure-A14
15.	16.12.2017	True copy of the transfer voucher of Rs.29,96,674/- to the loan account No.SML328 ofthe applicant.	Annexure-A15
16.	---	True copy of the Chalan No.726390 of Rs.29,96,674/- transferred to the loan account.	Annexure-A16
17.	16.12.2017	True copy of the withdrawal slip of Rs.10,00,000/-ofthe applicant.	Annexure-A17
18.	---	True copy of the deposit ledger reports from01.12.2017to 04.06.2022.	Annexure-A18
19.	---	True copy of the repayment details of the applicant from 16.12.2017 to 09.09.2019.	Annexure-A19
20.	09.09.2019	True copy of the application submitted by theapplicant.	Annexure-A20
21.	09.09.2019	True copy of the transfer voucher.	Annexure-A21
22.	09.09.2019	True copy of the Chalan No.803841 transferring Rs.10,00,000/- to the SB account ofthe applicant.	Annexure-A22
23.	09.09.2019	True copy of the cheque bearing No.017311.	Annexure-A23
24.	09.09.2019	True copy of the Chalan No.803894 transferringRs.3,27,000/-.	Annexure-A24
25.	09.09.2019	True copy of the Chalan No.803844 transferringRs.25,000/-.	Annexure-A25
26.	09.09.2019	True copy of the processing charge receipt oftheloans.	Annexure-A26
27.	06.12.2017	True copy of the processing charge receipt oftheloans.	Annexure-A27
28.	21.06.2022	True copy of the reply affidavit without exhibits filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P (C) No. 27988/2021 along with its English translation.	Annexure-A28

¶87

Page 13 of 14

¶88

SA No.400 of 2022

¶89

29.	---	True copy of the passbook issued by Fisheries Officer, Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board to the applicant alongwith itsEnglishtranslation.	Annexure-A29
30.	01.12.2017	True copy of the notice issued by the 3^rd defendant to the applicant along with itsEnglishtranslation.	Annexure-A30
31.	---	True copy of the covering page of the cheque book containing cheque Nos.101691 to 101700 issued by 3^rd defendant to the applicant in SB accountNo.1013548.	Annexure-A31

¶90

List of documents filed by the defendants

¶91

Sl.	Date	Particu	lars
No.
1.	---	True copy of the Security Interest	Rectification of Acknowledgment	Annexure-R1A
		report issued by the defendant.	CERSAI to the 1^st

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 14 of 14

P K Krishnan v. The Payangadi Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P K Krishnan v. The Payangadi Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binoy v Antony versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Mrs Alka Gupta

Dinesh Kumar Jindal versus Punjab National Bank

ms aparna mishra versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Avtar Singh

Kapil Kapoor versus the Bathinda Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.