Kaniamudha v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
DRT addressed an application to set aside sale notices under SARFAESI Act issued after the bank wrongly classified the account as NPA prematurely and failed to follow statutory rules for notice and affixture.
What did the court decide?
Application disposed with direction not to include expenditures for notices in the loan account.
What the court decided
SA No.225/2023
Fair Order
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI
DATED THIS 03rd DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA
[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No. 225/2023
Mrs. Kaniamudha, W/o. Lakshmanan naidu, (Legal heir of late Mr. R. Lakshmanan naidu) Ration Shop Street, 14th Ward, Main Road, Mavuthanpatti, Ammapatti Post, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District. --- Applicant
-Vs-
- The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Oddanchatram Branch, Dindigul District.
- The Authorised Officer,
- Canara Bank,
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the classification of the loan account as NPA was correct given the repayment history within the preceding 90 days.
Whether the recovery proceedings complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Security Interest Enforcement Rules.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mrs. Kaniamudha
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
Seema Sinha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court