In this recovery tribunal petition, the applicant challenged the possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, contending non-consideration of objections. The tribunal held the respondent's measures were lawful and compliance was satisfactory, dismissing the petition.
The Single Application SA.166/2024 stands dismissed and all pending IA's stand closed.
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE
Dated of 25th day of June, 2025
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer
S.A. No.166 of 2024
Sri. Manjunath J S S/o. Late. Satyanarayanan J G Aged 42 years, No.6, 18th Cross Kilari Road, Bangalore-560053
. . . Applicant
Versus
Canara Bank Rep.by its Authorized officer Majestic Branch, FKCCI Building. World Trade Center, Kempegowda Road Bengaluru-560009.
. . . Respondent
Ld. Counsels on record / appeared :- Counsel for Applicants :- Smt. Sandhya U Prabhu Counsel for Respondent :- Smt. Sowbhagya N A (through Caveat)
2
SA No.166/2024
: - O R D E R - :
17 Application.
3
SA No.166/2024
It is also stated that they had followed the procedure as mandated under the statute.
4
SA No.166/2024
5
SA No.166/2024
support of the same, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that
there is no merit in the SA and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, SA.166 of 2024 stands dismissed, all pending IA’s stands closed.
NO orders as to cost. Issue copies in accordance with rule 16 of the Debt
Recovery Tribunal (procedure) rule.
(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of June, 2025)
Sd/-
(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the measures taken by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act including the issuance of possession notice are legal.
Whether the applicant's contention that the respondent failed to consider the objection raised to the demand notice is meritorious.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Manjunath J S
Canara Bank
T. RAJESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
