Disposed

Sri Lakshmi Prapanna Ramanujadass Trust v. Religare Finvest Limited

DRT3 Sept 2025SA/227/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of a Securitization Application challenging a sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. It held that since the underlying mortgage is contested in pending civil court proceedings where the sale deeds were declared void, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate the creditor's measures. Additionally, the challenge became infructuous as the auction sale did not materialize.

What did the court decide?

SA stands disposed off giving liberty to 1st respondent to take legal remedy if any in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated.

Sri Lakshmi Prapanna Ramanujadass Trust versus Religare… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of September, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 227 of 2023

¶8

Sri Lakshmi Prapanna Ramanujadass Trust Rep. by its Administrative/Managing Trustee Sri Rama Prapanna chari, No.31, M.M.Koil Street, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. …Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorised Officer, M/s Religare Finvest Ltd.

¶11

No.14/FFA, I Floor, 4^th Avenue

¶12

Ashok Nagar

¶13

Chennai – 600 083.

¶14

M/s Dharma Medical Research and Charitable Trust No.23, Parameswari Nagar 2^nd Street, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶15

Dr. M. Maheswari

¶16

No.23, Parameswari Nagar 2^nd Street, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶17

Dr. V. Dharmalingam

¶18

No.23, Parameswari Nagar 2^nd Street, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶19

…Defendants

¶20

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶21

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K.J. Parthasarathy Counsel for 1^st Respondent : Mr. M. Arunachalam

¶22

R2 to R4 were placed ex-parte on 20.02.2025

¶23

ORDER ON SA 227 /2023

¶24

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section

¶25

[1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶30

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the e-auction sale dated 29.03.2023, published on 30.03.2023 by the 1^st respondent, fixing the sale on 18.04.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale notice is Rs.7,83,53,640/-.

¶31

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶32

3.1 It is the case of the applicant that the property being the lands of an extent of 87.5 Ares (14 Acres 51 Cents) morefully detailed in the schedule to the SA, along with other extensive immovable properties were bequeathed to the Applicant Trust under a Registered Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913 by Philanthropist Lakshmi Prapanna Ramajuna Doss to perform Charitable activities.

¶33

3.2 It is contended that as per the Trust Deed, the Trustees appointed under the Trust Deed or their successors have no rights to create any encumbrances over the Trust properties and Charitable Trust Properties cannot be dealt without permission of the competent Court. The validity of the Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913 was upheld by the competent Civil Court in OS No.108 of 1969 by a Judgment and Decree dated 13.03.1970 declaring that the Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913 registered as Document No.2879 of 1913 is valid and operative.

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

3.3 It is further submitted that the Trust filed CS No.657/1986 on the file of Madras High Court, seeking permission to sell few lands belonging to the Trust. In the said CS No.65/1986, an application was filed to implead S. Rajeevalochannachari to represent the Trust, in place of Mahant Damodaradoss, which came to be allowed vide order dated 22.07.1987 and S. Rajeevalochannachari was permitted to represent the Trust and Mahanth Damodaradoss name was removed and legally was not competent to represent the applicant Trust. After 10.06.1987, Mahanth Damodaradoss was not in the office of Trust and Mahanth Damodaradoss died on 20.06.2001. Mahanth Rajeevalochannachari during his lifetime executed a Will dated 24.05.2002 thereby appointing Rama Prapannachanna Chari as the sole Trustee of the Trust. Mahanth Rajeevalochannachari died on 28.05.2022.

¶38

3.4 It is submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 have created two registered Lease Deeds dated 16.09.1997 registered as Document No.4905/1997 in respect of 2.68.5 Hectares of land and 4906/1997 belonging to 3.86.5 Hectares of land, which are registered in the District Registrar Office, Madras – South at Saidapet, in connivance with the said Damodaradoss, who was not Trustee of the Trust at that point of time i.e., on 16.09.1997, as he was removed by order dated 22.07.1987 instance. The Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913 prohibits the Trustees from encumbering the Trust properties and lease deed by individuals not connected with the Trust are sham and nominal. Further, there was no reason for registering the said lease deeds at Saidapet for the lands

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

situated at Sriperumbudur. Hence the lease deeds have been created with an intent to create an encumbrance on the subject properties.

¶43

3.5 Further, the 4^th respondent seems to have created a power of attorney dated 04.02.1999 said to have been executed by the expelled Damodaradoss giving power to the 4^th respondent to sell the Trust lands. It is pertinent to note that on 04.02.1999, the said Damodaradoss was not the Trustee of the Trust and in any event the said Damodaradoss had not right to give power of attorney to the 4^th respondent in lieu of the terms of the Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913. The 4^th respondent based on the illegal Power of Attorney had created two Sale Deeds dated 03.05.2001, registered as Document Nos.1911/2001 and 1912/2001. The said sale deeds have been created by 3^rd and 4^th respondents in the name of 2^nd respondent represented by 3^rd respondent and fraudulently registered in Sub-Registrar’s office, Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District on 16.08.2001. No Court permission whatsoever was obtained before executing such sale. Further, it is pertinent to note that as on the date of execution of sale deed, the said Damodaradoss, alleged Principal was not alive. He died on 20.06.2001 in Chennai. The sale deeds though dated 03.05.2001 were executed and registered at Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District on 16.08.2001 and the Sub-Registrar has no territorial jurisdiction.

¶44

3.6 It is the further case of the applicant that the Trust filed OS No.390 of 2009 before the District Munsiff Court, Sriperumpudur. In the said suit, an order of injunction was also obtained against the respondents

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

from interfering with the possession of the Trust. The said Trust owing to bifurcation of jurisdiction, had been transferred to the Principal District Munsiff at Kancheepuram and renumbered as OS No.186 of 2012. Some extent of the Trust Property was acquired under the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act and owing to rival claims by the respondents 2 to 4, which culminated into proceedings under Section 30 of the Act in LAOP No.123 of 2007, which was ordered holding that 3^rd respondent was entitled to the compensation. Challenging the said order, the applicant had filed A.S. No.760 of 2009 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras and stay of operation of the judgment and decree in LAOP NO.123 of 2007 was granted vide order dated 02.07.2009 and the said appeal is pending adjudication.

¶49

3.7. The respondents 2 to 4 despite aware of all the above legal proceedings, seem to have created a fraudulent mortgage in favour of the 1^st respondent financial institution on 05.10.2015 for the facility availed being a sum of Rs.7,55,00,000/- depositing the fraudulent deeds dated 1911 of 2001 and 1912 of 2001. The applicant on knowledge had caused legal notice dated 17.06.2018 to the 1^st respondent detailing the pending litigations and to clear the illegal encumbrance. Despite receipt of the notice, issued Sale Notice dated 29.03.2023 fixing the sale on 18.04.2023. Again applicant had caused Legal Notice dated 04.04.2023 on the 1^st respondent to desist from proceeding further. However, 1^st respondent without replying, had proceeded further with its unwarranted measures. The 1^st respondent seems to claim security interest based on

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

the above forged and fabricated documents. The alleged right as claimed by the 1^st respondent is itself void and is not entitled for any claim on the subject property, without any valid mortgage, as respondents 2 to 4 do not have any right, title over the schedule mentioned property. The alleged Sale Notice is improper / invalid as the same has been caused in contravention of Rule 8(6) of the SIE Rules. Hence, applicant prayed for setting aside the impugned Sale Notice dated 29.03.2023, published on 30.03.2023 fixing the auction on 18.04.2023.

¶54

3.8 Applicant had relied upon the following judgments:

¶55

(i) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sree Anandha Kumar Mills Ltd. – Vs. – Indian Overseas bank reported in 2019 (14) SCC 788;

¶56

(ii) Judgment of Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai M/s Small Industries Development Bank of India – Vs. – Geetha Ravishankar & Another in RA (SA) 194/2017 decided on 25.04.2023

¶57

4. Objections of the 1^st respondent:

¶58

4.1 It is submitted by the 1^st respondent that applicant is a third party to the SARFAESI proceedings claiming rights of the secured assets. The 1^st respondent had initiated SARFAESI proceedings against respondents 2 to 4, since they committed defaults in repayment of the loan facility, which they availed by 1^st respondent, by creating security in respect of the property morefully detailed in the schedule to the SA.

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

4.2 It is the case of the 1^st respondent that respondents 2 to 4 had availed loan facility to the tune of Rs.7.55 crores on 27.09.2015 and executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent also had executed a Deed of Simple Mortgage Deed dated 05.10.2015 vide Document No.9643 of 2015 on the file of Sub Registrar, Sriperumpudur to secure the loan availed by them. As respondents 2 to 4 failed to adhere to the terms of loan agreement and committed default in payment of installments, 1^st respondent had classified the loan account as NPA on 30.04.2018 and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 17.05.2018, which was duly served to respondents 2 to 4 on 19.05.2018. Inspite of receipt of notice, as respondents 2 to 4 failed to pay the outstanding dues nor had raised objection / representation, 1^st respondent issued Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act on 03.09.2021. Thereafter, apprehending breach of peace in taking physical possession of the secured asset, filed an application under Section 14 of the Act before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet in Crl. M.P. No.270 of 2022 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed vide order dated 01.07.2022.

¶63

4.3 1^st respondent denied the facts of the case as narrated by the applicant in as much as the 1^st respondent is not aware of the details as to the Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913 and hence not aware of the contents therein. At the time of availing the loan facility, respondents 2 to 4 furnished copy of the Will dated 13.03.1973 registered as Doc No.6 of 1973 executed by Nandi Kishore Ramanuja Dass in favour of Mahant

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

Damodhardass, as the Trustee of the applicant Trust. The 1^st respondent is not aware of the Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913 and its contents thereto are subject to verification. But the 1^st respondent had strictly denied the averment of the applicant that Trustees appointed under the Trust Deed or their successors have no right to create any encumbrance over the Trust properties and cannot be dealt without permission of the competent Court. Further, the copies of the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.108 of 1969 is not clear and whether the said judgment was challenged and hence reserves the right to challenge its contents once clean copies of the same are filed and served.

¶68

4.4 It is further contended by the 1^st respondent that the document filed by the applicant with regard to order in A.No.3076 of 1987, which states that a person was impleaded as Trustee in the place of another person as there was no objection and it does not state anything with regard to the averments made in the facts of the case that Mahanth Damodaradoss was removed and legally was not competent to represent the applicant Trust. Mahanth Damodaradoss has given Power of Attorney as Trustee of a Trust in favour of one of the borrower of the 1^st respondent herein. Hence the facts as stated by the applicant is not evidenced with any proper document and hence the same are denied.

¶69

4.5 It is submitted that with the documents furnished by respondents 2 to 4 at the time of applying for the loan, which were legally scrutinized and loan amount was sanctioned. At the time of verification of documents, with regard to registration of the document in a different

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

location, it is submitted by the 1^st respondent that the same was permitted as legally valid at that point of time. The deeds executed by Mahanth Damodaradoss is valid and has authority to execute the same as the averments of the applicant is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is the bounden duty of the applicant to prove that Mahanth Damodaradoss is not having any right to execute Power of Attorney to sell the Trust lands.

¶74

4.6 The respondents 2 to 4 in order to cheat the 1^st respondent had colluded with the applicant and made the applicant file this SA. Further, an Educational institution is being run in the secured asset from the year 1997 i.e., when the lease documents were registered. What prevented the applicant from raising dispute with regard to the title all these years and suddenly now coming up with SARFAESI application, only with an intention to cheat the 1^st respondent from recovery of public money.

¶75

4.7 With regard to Legal Notice alleged to have been issued by the applicant dated 17.08.2018 to the 1^st respondent, it is submitted that there is no proof as to sending the same has been filed. The 1^st respondent are the secured creditors in respect of the SA schedule mentioned property and they are having valid, legal and enforceable mortgage in their favour. The impugned Sale Notice dated 24.03.2023 fixing the sale on 18.04.2023, did not fructify for want of bidders. Thus submitting, 1^st respondent prayed for dismissing the SA, as the same is without merits and based on presumptions.

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the

¶80

case.

¶81

5.1 It is manifest from records that the applicant, being a Trust, Sri Laksmi Prapanna Ramanujadass Trust, registered under Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913 to perform charitable activities and the validity of the Trust Deed was upheld by the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu in OS No.108 of 1969 by a judgment and decree dated 13.03.1970 declaring that the Trust Deed dated 05.11.1913 registered as document No.2879 of 1913 is valid and operative. By the passage of time, S. Rajeevalochannachari was permitted to represent the Trust and Mahanth Damodaradoss, the then Trustee was removed vide order of Hon’ble High Court dated 22.07.1987. After 10.06.1987, Mahant Damodaradoss was not in the office of Trust and subsequently, he passed away on 20.06.2001. The said Mahanth Rajeevalochannachari executed a Will dated 24.05.2002, thereby appointing Rama Prapannachannachari as the sole Trustee. Subsequently, Mahanth Rajeevalochannachari died on 28.05.2022.

¶82

5.2 It is contended by the applicant that respondents 3 and 4 have created two registered lease deeds dated 16.09.1997 registered as Doc. No.4905/1997 and 4906/1997 and the said lease deeds are registered by the respondents 3 and 4 in connivance with the said Damodaradoss, who was not the Trustee at the relevant point of time. The 4^th respondent seems to have created a power of attorney dated 04.02.1999 said to have been executed by the expelled Damodaradoss and based on that power of attorney, 4^th respondent had created two sale deeds dated 03.05.2001,

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

registered as Doc No.1911/2001 and 1912/2001 on 16.08.2001 in Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District, on which date the said Damodaradoss, the Principal was not alive. Based on the above said sale deeds, the respondents 2 to 4 had availed the credit facility to the tune of Rs.7.55 crores and created mortgage in favour of the 1^st respondent. Due to default in repayment of dues, 1^st respondent had initiated SARAFESI measures and issued Demand Notice, Possession Notice followed by the subject impugned Sale Notice. Aggrieved by the paper publication of the Sale Notice issued by the 1^st respondent, applicant had preferred the present SA.

¶87

5.3 In the meanwhile, the applicant Trust had filed suit in OS No.390 of 2009 before District Munsif Court, Sriperumpudur, wherein an order of injunction was also obtained against the respondents from interfering with possession of the Trust. The said case was subsequently transferred to Principal District Munsiff at Kancheepuram due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and re-numbered as OS No.186 of 2012.

¶88

5.4 During the course of arguments, applicant had produced the judgment in OS No.186 of 2012 dated 29.01.2024. The operative portion of the order is produced below:

¶89

12. In the result this suit is decreed as follows:-

¶90

i) That the defendants are hereby directed to deliver vacant possession of the ‘B’ Schedule property after removing whatever

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

superstructure if any in the ‘B’ schedule property; within three months from the date of decree.

¶95

ii) That the Lease Deed dated 16.09.1997 vide Document No.4905/1997 on the file of District Registrar, Saidapet and the same is hereby declared as null and void;

¶96

iii) That the Lease Deed dated 16.09.1997 vide Document No.4906/1997 on the file of District Registrar, Saidapet and the same is hereby declared as null and void;

¶97

iv) That the Sale Deed dated 16.08.2001 vide Document No.1911/2001 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendant be and the same is hereby declared as null and void;

¶98

v) That the Sale Deed dated 16.08.2001 vide Document No.1912/2001 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendant be and the same is hereby declared as null and void;

¶99

vi) That the defendants, their mens, agents or servants from are hereby restrained from interfering in the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the ‘C’ Schedule property;

vi) No cost.”

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

5.5. The District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram in OS No.186/2012 has declared the sale deed dated 16.08.2001 as null and void. There is a dispute of the mortgage created by 3^rd and 4^th respondent favoring the 1^st respondent which is created on basis of the sale deed dated 16.08.2001 which has been adjudicated in O.S.No.186/2012 and admittedly the respondents 2 to 4 have created mortgage favoring the financial institution on the very same sale deed dated 16.08.2001 which is registered as Doc. No.1911/2001 and 1912/2001. The schedule B property as described in the judgment is the secured asset which the respondent is claiming the security interest for the enforcement under the SARFAESI Act.

¶105

5.6 The Tribunal under Section 17 has to adjudicate the measures taken by the secured creditor as contemplated under the Act. In the instant matter the very creation of mortgage favoring the secured creditor is questioned on the basis of alleged execution of sale deed which was challenged in O.S.No.186/2012. The Tribunal under Section 17 cannot adjudicate the civil rights of the parties, evidently the question of mortgage based on sale deeds has been already adjudicated by the civil court. The Tribunal cannot proceed further in adjudicating any measures taken by respondent financial institution in enforcing security asset.

¶106

The present SA is challenging the sale notice wherein the secured asset is the same property as described under Schedule B in the Judgment. Hence the security favoring the 1^st respondent company does not survive. Though the Respondent institution is not a party to the

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

O.S.No.186 of 2012, the respondent is at liberty to exercise their rights if any in accordance to law.

¶111

Secondly, the applicant has challenged the sale notice dated 29.03.2023, as the sale has not materialized, the prayer in the SA has becomes infructuous.

¶112

With the above observations, SA stands disposed off giving liberty to 1^st respondent to take legal remedy if any in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶113

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶114

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶115

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 03^rd day of 03^rd September, 2025)

¶116

ANNEXURES

¶117

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶118

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Trust Deed with Translation dated 05.11.1913	A-1
2.	Judgment in O.S.No.108 of 1969 dated 13.03.1970	A-2
3.	Decree in O.S.No.108 of 1969 dated 13.03.1970	A-3
4.	Order in A.No.3076/1987 in C.S.No.657 of 1986 dated 22.07.1987	A-4
5.	Power of attorney by Mahant Damodara Doss to and in favour of V. Dharmalingam dated 04.02.1999	A-5
6.	Death Certificate of Mahant Damodara Doss dated	A-6

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

	20.06.2001
7.	Sale Deed registered as Doc.No.1911/2001 in the office of Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District dated 16.08.2011	A-7
8.	Sale Deed registered as Doc.No.1912/2001 in the office of Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District dated 16.08.2001	A-8
9.	Appointment of Trustee dated 24.05.2002	A-9
10.	Death Certificate of Rajeevalochannachari dated 28.05.2002	A-10
11.	Order in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in A.S.No.760 of 2009 dated 02.07.2009	A-11
12.	Plaint in O.S.No.390 of 2009 (renumbered as O.S.No.186/2012 Principal District Munsiff Kancheepuram) dated 06.08.2009	A-12
13.	Affidavit and Petition in I.A.No.1144 of 2009 & order dated 12.08.2009	A-13
14.	Illegal Mortgage in favour of 1^strespondent dated 05.10.2015	A-14
15.	Legal Notice to 1^stRespondent dated 17.06.2018	A-15
16.	Impugned sale notice dated 29.03.2023	A-16
17.	Legal notice to 1^strespondent dated 04.04.2023	A-17
	Additional typed set of documents
18.	Judgment in OS No.186 of 2012 dated 29.01.2024	A-18
19.	Decree in OS No.186 of 2012 dated 29.01.2024	A-19

¶123

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT

¶124

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Copy of Board Resolution dated 10.11.2022	R-1
2.	Copy of Sanction letter dated 27.09.2015	R-2
3.	Copy of Sale Deed (Doc.No.1911 & 1912/2001) dated 03.05.2001	R-3
4.	Copy of Deed Mortgage dated 05.10.2015	R-4
5.	Copy of Encumbrance Certificate	R-5
6.	Copy of 13(2) notice under SARFAESI Act with postal receipts and online tract consignment dated 17.05.2018	R-6
7.	Copy of possession notice with postal receipts and online tracker dated 03.09.2021	R-7
8.	Copy of paper publication in English – The New Indian Express dated 07.09.2021	R-8
9.	Copy of paper publication in Tamil – Dinamani dated 07.09.2021	R-9

SA No.227/2023

03.09.2025

10.	Photos of Affixture–13(4) Notice	R-10
11.	Copy of Auction sale notice with postal receipts, online tracker, acknowledgement cards & Affixture photo dated 24.03.2023	R-11
12.	Copy of Paper Publication in English and Tamil Newspaper dated 30.03.2023	R-12

¶129

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶130

All that piece and parcel of the lands in all measuring an extent of 5 Hectares 87.5 Ares(14 Acres 51 cents) situated at Dharma Medical Research & Charitable Trust, Bangalore Road, Sriperumbudur “B” village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu comprised in the following Survey Numbers and their corresponding extents :-

¶131

Item No.1	Survey Nos.	Extent (In Hectares)	In Ares
	720/1	0	31.5
	720/2	0	16.5
	720/3	0	5.5
	720/4	0	26.5
1.	721	0	26.5
	716	0	9
	717/2	0	6.3
	717/3	0	1.5
	718/1	0	11.5
	719/2	0	11.5
	719/3	0	31.5
	714/1	0	22.5
	708	0	68.5
	709/1B	0	9.5
	709/2	0	52
	710/1	0	46
2.	710/2	0	14.5
	711/1	0	13
	711/2	0	3
	712	0	54
	719/1	0	70
	TOTAL	5	87.5

¶132

Sd/(S.V.GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Sri Lakshmi Prapanna Ramanujadass Trust v. Religare Finvest Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmi Prapanna Ramanujadass Trust v. Religare Finvest Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Janani Agencies

Hdfc Bank versus M s Crimson Foods

Bank of Maharashtra versus Janarthanam

Mr Anbil Saravanan versus Indian Bank

Thilagam versus Canara Bank

Nathiya versus Indian Bank