Dismissed

N Gurumurthy v. Canara Bank

DRT5 Dec 2025SA/391/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the prayer to set aside the sale notice dated 19.08.2022 issued by Canara Bank. The Tribunal held that the bank complied with SARFAESI Act procedures, responding to all objections, and validly conducted the auction, denying the claim of misappropriation.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.08.2022 and the subsequent sale is dismissed.

N Gurumurthy versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 05^th day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 391 of 2022

¶8

Mr. N. Gurumurthy S/o Late Nagasubramaniam No.186, Vysial Street, Pondicherry 605 001.

¶9

Mrs. G. Anbesangeetha W/o Mr. N. Gurumurthy No.186, Vysial Street, Pondicherry 605 001. …Applicants

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, CANARA BANK Puducherry Bazaar Branch, No.122-124, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry 605 001. …Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : Ms. A. Arasu Sanga Tamil Counsel for Respondent : Mr. R. Jagadeesan

¶13

ORDER ON SA 391 /2022

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and 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].

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.08.2022 fixing the sale to be held on 20.09.2022 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale notice is Rs.18,56,616.75/-

¶19

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶20

3.1 It is the case of the applicants that the applicants have been maintaining various loan accounts and executed hypothecation deed vide Doc.No.3100/2008 dated 12.08.2008 and also executed another deed vide Doc.No.5473/2010 in favor of the respondent bank under the assurance of the respondent bank for sanction of a loan of Rs.1.00 crore, which was not sanctioned to the applicants. Hence the deed executed in Doc.No.5473/2010 is not valid under law.

¶21

3.2 The Manager, Balasubramanian had misappropriated the amounts paid by the applicants in the years 2011 to 2013. The manager had created and closed the loan account without any consent of the applicants which the respondent bank also failed to hand over the several cheques for verification.

¶22

3.3 On receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice, applicants came to know that the Manager who is residing as tenant in their house has misappropriated the money and alleged that the applicants have to pay Rs.12.00 crores in Syndicate Bank. Subsequently, the applicants sent their reply to the Demand Notice vide letter dated 06.09.2016 stating that there is a misappropriation of money by Respondent’s Bank Manager and after

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

the receipt of the reply letter, there is no further reply from the respondent bank.

¶27

3.4 It is submitted that the applicant has lodged a complaint in Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing against the respondent bank in the year 2015 and it is found that misappropriation of money has happened by the respondent bank and the Bank Manager also gave a report on 27.05.2019 but failed to lodge a complaint against the previous manager who misappropriated the money. Mr. K. Pavan Kumar was appointed as Bank Manager assured the applicants that he would clear their problems and obtained signatures on blank papers from the applicants.

¶28

3.5 The Bank Manager has sent three notices dated 05.04.2018, 10.04.2018 and 16.04.2018 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and on receipt of the said notices, applicants sent three reply letters dated 15.05.2018, 17.05.2018 and 01.06.2018. Further the respondent bank has sent another notice under Section 13(3A) to the applicants without considering their reply letters.

¶29

3.6 Additionally, the respondent bank sent a notice dated 14.12.2020 stating that they have taken the possession of the property and also sent another notice under Section 13(4) on 23.12.2020 which is prior to 60 days. Therefore, the applicant has filed three cases in SA 251/2018, SA 252/2018 and SA 253/2018 before DRT – III, Chennai which was disposed in favor of the applicant on 17.10.2019.

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

3.7 In fact, the applicants filed a W.P before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras seeking for a direction to SHO, Grand Bazaar Police to register FIR against the respondent’s Bank Manager Mr. S. Balasubramanian, registered as Crime No.13/2019 on 03.02.2019 which is pending before the Hon’ble CJM, Puducherry in C.C.No.500/2020.

¶34

3.8 The applicants have sent another reply letter dated 01.06.2020 for fifth time by mentioning previous reply letters for which there is no reply from the respondent bank till date. Though the respondent had sent letter to the applicants dated 19.05.2020, 18.07.2020, 20.08.2020 stating the applicant to read the contents in 20.04.2020, which the applicants has not received the letter dated 20.04.2020.

¶35

3.9 The respondent bank has sent another notice dated 14.12.2020 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act which is acknowledged by the applicant on 23.12.2020. In the grounds, it is contended that the Bank Manager has opened several loan accounts and closed the accounts himself without the knowledge of the applicant

¶36

3.10 The respondent bank has sent impugned three sale notice to the applicants without following the law and procedure on 19.08.2022 which was acknowledged by the applicants on 22.08.2022. Hence, the applicants prays to set aside the Sale notice dated 19.08.2022 as illegal.

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶41

4.1 The respondent bank has filed a detailed counter inter alia contending that the averments made in the present SA are totally false. The applicants had made out the same allegations in SA 16/2021 challenging the Possession Notice and SA 39/2021 challenging the Sale notice dated 05.02.2021 and the same was dismissed. Though the applicants did not approach the respondent bank for One Time Settlement, hence the two properties were auctioned on 20.09.2022 and one property was sold for Rs.1,58,50,000/- to the successful bidder.

¶42

4.2 The respondent bank as a secured has followed the due compliance of the procedures as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act. Thus, after classifying the loan account as NPA on 31.03.2018, respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 17.02.2020 to the applicants and the same was received by the applicants. On receipt the applicants has sent a reply letter dated 13.04.2020 to the Demand notice and the respondent bank also given reply vide letter dated 24.04.2020.

¶43

4.3 As the applicants did not repay the outstanding due amount, respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Possession Notice dated 23.12.2020 which is also published in two Newspapers, one in English and another in Tamil daily Newspapers on 25.12.2020. Further the respondent bank has issued E-Auction Sale notice dated 19.08.2022, published the sale notice in two Newspapers, affixed on the property.

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

4.4 The contention raised by the applicant that the respondent bank has not replied to the representation dated 13.04.2020 is denied as the respondent has replied vide letter dated 24.04.2020 to the applicant’s reply letter dated 13.04.2020 and the same was received by the applicants. The respondent bank also sent a letter dated 20.05.2020 enclosing the reply letter dated 24.04.2020 by RPAD. Applicants had admitted the receipt of letter dated 19.05.2020 wherein it is also mentioned about the reply letter dated 24.04.2020. Hence the contention raised by the applicant does not sustain.

¶48

4.5 The applicants have filed SA 251 to 253 of 2018 before DRT III, after considering all the allegations this Tribunal has disposed the above applications. Another contention as raised by the applicant is that on the assurance of the respondent to sanction a sum of Rs.1.00 crore the Doc.No.5473 of 2010 executed by the applicant is not valid does not sustain as the applicant has voluntarily deposited the title deeds favoring the respondent bank to secure the credit facilities sanctioned to the applicants. Hence, the mortgage executed by the applicant is valid.

¶49

4.6 Further the contentions with regard to the creation of 15 new loan accounts and the same was closed without the knowledge of the applicant and the applicant’s brother has availed a loan of Rs.12.00 crores are made without any evidence. The allegations made in Para No.7 to 9 are false, as the applicant after accepting a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs from the previous manager Mr. Balasubramanian has withdrawn the complaint. The

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

applicants also filed a criminal case against the respondent which is still pending, hence the matter is sub-judice.

¶54

4.7 The respondent bank had sent the reply letters to the applicants. The respondent bank has issued Sale notices dated 14.12.2020, 23.12.2020 and 05.02.2021 which was challenged in SA 16/2021 and SA 39/2021 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2021. In fact, the applicants approached the Regional Office of Canara Bank on 06.05.2020 and informed all the facts, hence the contention raised by the applicant that the regional office has not informed about the facts does not sustain.

¶55

4.8 The respondent bank has issued Possession Notice dated 23.12.2020 after cancelling the Possession Notice dated 14.12.2020 in pursuant to the order in SA 16 of 2021 and SA 39 of 2021. The applicants have produced Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 31.05.2022 contending that there is a misappropriation of Rs.34,50,000/- and interest was calculated for Rs.80,52,000/- without verification of any other documents. Admittedly there is a criminal case pending for misappropriation of the amount, hence the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant is not valid.

¶56

4.9 Thus the respondent bank has followed all the procedures in issuing statutory notices and applicants failed to point out any irregularity under the SARFAESI Act and further denies all the averments made by the applicants and prays for dismissal of the present SA as devoid of merits.

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

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

¶61

5.1 The applicants are the borrower and guarantor who have filed the present SA challenging the sale notice dated 19.08.2022 scheduling the sale to be held on 20.09.2022. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the applicants have admitted the availing of credit facilities and execution of hypothecation deed and mortgage of the schedule property and second Equitable Mortgage as security towards the credit facilities availed which is not disputed by the applicants herein. After execution of loan documents, hypothecation agreement and mortgage by deposit of title deeds now contends that mortgage is null and void without any legal basis.

¶62

5.2 Due to default in the repayment, the respondent bank has classified the loan accounts as NPA on 31.03.2018 followed by issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notices and Section 13(4) Possession Notices, which is withdrawn by the respondent pursuant to the Orders in SA No.16/2021. Further, the respondent bank has issued a fresh Demand Notice dated 17.02.2020 which is admittedly received by the applicants herein.

¶63

5.3 After the receipt of the Demand Notice, the applicants have sent their reply vide letters dated 13.04.2020, 16.04.2020, 05.05.2020, and 01.06.2020 which has been duly replied by the respondent bank vide their reply letters dated 20.04.2020, 24.04.2020, 19.05.2020, 18.07.2020 and 20.08.2020. The respondent bank has issued demand notice under Section 13[2] and have complied the procedures in issuing the Section 13[2] notice as per the Act.

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

5.4 On receipt of the Section 13[2] notice, the applicants have raised the objections on 13.04.2020 under Section 13[3A] to which the respondent have also replied to the objections as required under Section 13[3A]. However, the applicant denies the reply dated 24.04.2020 by the bank contrarily to the admission that they have received cover dated 24.04.2020 contained only 3 green sheets alleging no reply is given to the objections. However, the respondent has clarified that the copy of the reply letter dated 24.04.2020 was again sent along with letter 20.05.2020 and in the letter dated 20.07.2020 which is produced by the applicant it is seen that the Authorized Officer had mentioned to treat letter dated 19.05.2020 as part and parcel of the letter. Contrary to the averments and allegation made, the applicants do not dispute the receipt of the letter 20.04.2020 wrongly mentioned as 24.04.2020 issued by the bank.

¶68

5.5 It is pertinent to note that the applicants have raised the same contentions of non-reply to the objections to demand notice in SA.16/2021 challenging the possession notice and in SA 39/2021 challenging the sale notice dated 05.02.2021 which the Tribunal has already adjudicated the issue and an order is passed on 02.12.2021.

¶69

5.6 As the applicants failed to liquidate the entire liabilities as demanded in the Demand notice, the respondent bank has issued Possession Notice dated 14.12.2020 which was cancelled and the same was communicated to the applicant vide covering letter dated 23.12.2020 along with fresh Possession Notice dated 23.12.2020

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

5.7 The Possession Notice is produced at Page No.71 and 72 of respondent bank’s typed set which is received by applicants; the Possession Notice dated 23.12.2020 is also duly published in English Newspaper and another in Vernacular language (Tamil) on 25.12.2020 as evident from the paper publication produced at Page No.73 and 74 of respondent bank’s typed set. The Possession Notice is duly affixed on the conspicuous part of the property as evident from the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.105 to 109 of their typed set. Thus, it is evident that the respondent bank has followed the procedures as prescribed under Rule 8 of SI rules which is supported by documents for due compliance of the procedures in issuing the Section 13[4] possession notice.

¶74

5.8 As the applicants failed to liquidate the entire liabilities even after the receipt of statutory notices, the respondent bank has initiated further measures and issued Sale Notice dated 19.08.2022 scheduling the sale to be held on 20.09.2022 which is duly served to the applicants as per the acknowledgement cards produced by the respondent bank at Page No.97 of their typed set. The sale notice is also published in two Newspapers in English and in Tamil as evident from the paper publication produced at Page No.98 and 99 of their typed set which is also duly affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as reflected from the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.100 to 104 of their typed set.

¶75

5.9 The Sale notice dated 19.08.2022 is issued to the borrower and guarantor, but they have failed to redeem the property under Section 13(8)

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

of the Act. Further the sale is successfully held on 20.09.2022 and the property was successfully sold to the highest bidder. Out of the two properties, the property situated at Vysal Street, Pondchaerry is sold to the highest and successful bidder for Rs.1,58,50,000/-, the highest bidder has paid 25% of the bid amount.

¶80

5.10 The main contention as raised by the applicants is that the respondent bank has failed to reply to the letters dated 13.04.2020, 16.04.2020 and 05.05.2020 is not sustainable as the respondent bank has replied vide letter dated 24.04.2020, 12.05.2020 and 20.05.2020 which is also sent through RPAD. In fact, the applicants have admitted the receipt of letter dated 24.04.2020 and submitted that there is only 3 blank green pages which is unsustainable as the same is already considered in SA No.16/2021 and SA No.39/2021 and the allegation is not supported by any documents.

¶81

5.11 The another contention as raised by the applicant is that the respondent bank has issued two Possession Notices dated 14.12.2020 and 23.12.2020 is not sustainable as the respondent bank has duly withdrawn the Possession Notice dated 14.12.2020 and the same is communicated while issuing fresh Possession Notice dated 23.12.2020.

¶82

5.12 In fact, the applicant has received the statutory notices and failed to redeem the property under Section 13(8) of the Act, this Tribunal relies on Celir LLP –Vs. –Bafna Motors & Others – [2024 Live Law

¶83

(SC) 991 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

borrower loses right of redemption on the date of publication of the Sale Notice and the applicant having failed to redeem the property as required under Section 13(8) have waived her right, where it is held as

¶88

"Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be set-aside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding."

¶89

The court further held "In such cases, courts in particular should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confirmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity."

¶90

5.13 In fact, the respondent bank has filed a memo on 05.08.2025 stating that the sale has taken place on 29.09.2022 and loan accounts of 1^st applicant was adjusted and prayed for disposal of the present SA. Though the applicant has challenged the sale notice dated 19.08.2022 in the instant matter, the averments raised is pertaining to misappropriation of funds, and the contentions as raised in respect of misappropriation of fund is

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

matter of records of the case which the applicant has settled with the officials for a settlement of Rs.9 lakhs and also the applicant has withdrawn the complaint initiated remedy available to them under Criminal procedures. In fact, the vigilance and anti-corruption wing had conducted due enquiries in the year 2015 and the criminal case is pending, though the matter is sub-judice in law.

¶95

5.14 As there is no dispute of mortgage favoring the respondent bank, the bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act in enforcing the security available to them. In fact, the secured creditor has established the due compliance of the procedures as required under the Act and Rules resulting in upholding the Section 13[2] and Section 13[4] notices as valid notices. Further the challenge to the sale notice dated 19.08.2022 is not justified by any irregularity in issuance of sale notice or in conducting the sale under the Act. It is also pertinent to note that the applicants have also filed the following SAs:

¶96

i. SA 390/22 challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.08.2022

¶97

ii. SA 392/22 challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.08.2022

¶98

iii. SA 291/23 challenging the Section 14 order dated 11.04.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.10400 of 2022 by Ld. CJM Puducherry which were already heard & orders are being passed.

¶99

5.15 On careful examination of pleadings and documents produced by respective parties, the Tribunal comes to conclusion that the respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act after

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

classifying the account as NPA. After classifying the loan account as NPA has issued Section 13[2] demand notice followed by issuance of possession notice and also issued Sale notice dated 19.08.2022 where the sale is successfully held on 29.09.2022. Further the respondent bank has complied all the procedures as contemplated under the Act and the Rules with supporting documents. Thus, it is held that Section 13[2] Demand notice dated 17.02.2020 and Section 13[4] Possession notice dated 23.12.2020 and Sale notice 19.08.2022 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶104

As there is no illegality in conducting the sale, the present SA fails. Resultantly the present SA is dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶105

Sd/-

¶106

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

¶107

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 05^th day of December, 2025)

¶108

ANNEXURES

¶109

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶110

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Appeal English dated 05.09.2022	A-1
2.	Sale Notice original dated 19.08.2022	A-2

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

3.	1^stand 2^ndapplicant’s Aadhar xerox copy dated 05.09.2022	A-3
4.	SA No.251/2018 order copy dated 17.10.2019	A-4
5.	SA No.251/2018 conditional order copy dated 13.09.2019	A-5
6.	Pay order Rs.10,00,000.00/- DD Slip dated 09.09.2019	A-6
7.	Police Final Report dated 21.10.2020	A-7
8.	SA No.16/2021 Order copy dated 02.12.2021	A-8
9.	SA No.16/2021 Conditional order copy dated 15.03.2021	A-9
10.	Pay order Rs.40,00,000.00/-RTG Slip	A-10
11.	Auditor Report dated 31.05.2022	A-11

¶115

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶116

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Letter addressed to the respondent bank by the 1^stapplicant referring his compliant letter dated 19.02.2015	R-1
2.	Acknowledgement of Debt for all types of facilities by borrowers/sureties – executed by the 1^stapplicant and guarantor for the account number 96011400000070 dated 30.03.2015	R-2
3.	Acknowledgement of Debt for all types of facilities by borrowers/sureties – executed by the 1^stapplicant and guarantor for the account number 96011250000894 dated 30.03.2015	R-3
4.	Letter addressed to the respondent by the 1^st applicant complaining against the branch manager Mr. Balasubramanian regarding non credit of Rs.10.00 lakhs on 11.08.2012 in OD account number 960112500856 along with Translation dated 28.10.2015	R-4
5.	Letter addressed to the respondent bank by the 1^stapplicant mentioning that the applicant will pay the entire dues in respect of the account number 96011250000894 dated 30.12.2016	R-5
6.	Letter addressed to the Respondent bank by the 1^stapplicant in respect of the excess interest charged in the four accounts viz., 125/615; 125/841; 125/856 and 140/70 dated 22.02.2017	R-6

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

7.	Application submitted by the 1^stapplicant to the respondent bank to open overdraft/ cash credit/ loan facility/ granted to him dated 22.05.2017	R-7
8.	Acknowledgement of Debt for all types of facilities by borrowers/ sureties executed by the 1^stapplicant and guarantor in respect of the account number 96011400000070 dated 22.05.2017	R-8
9.	Acknowledgement of Debt for all types of Facilities by borrowers/ sureties executed by the applicant in respect of the account number 9601155000894 dated 22.05.2017	R-9
10.	Letter addressed to the respondent bank by the 1^stapplicant regarding payment of dues of Rs.23,86,000.00 in the account number 96011250000894 by 25.06.2018 and also payment of dues of Rs.31,40,000.00 in account number 96011400000070 by 15.07.2018	R-10
11.	Letter addressed to the 1^stapplicant by the respondent bank – Ref.No.9601/PDY/DRT/Gurumurthy/2019 along with the Track Consignment Report	R-11
12.	Letter addressed to the 1^stapplicant by the respondent bank with regard to adjustment of DD amount submitted by Mr.N.Gurumurthy in DRT III, Chennai – Ref.No. 9601/PDY/DRT/Gurumurthy/2019/2 along with Track Consignment Report dated 21.12.2019	R-12
13.	Demand Notice issued by the respondent bank to the applicant under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act along with acknowledgements dated 17.02.2020	R-13
14.	Letter addressed to 1. MD and CEO of Syndicate Bank; 2. GM, Regional Office, Bengaluru, 3. RM, Regional Office, Vellore; 4. RM, Regional Office, Chennai; 5. Authorized Officer, Puducherry Branch and 6. The Senior Branch Manager, Puducherry by the applicants in respect of the 7 notices issued by the respondent bank dated 13.04.2020	R-14
15.	Reply given by the respondent bank with respect to Demand Notice dated 17.02.2020 and the applicants reply letter dated 13.04.2020	R-15
16.	Reply letter addressed to the applicants by the respondent bank for the 1^stapplicant’s letter dated 04.05.2020 along with the Postal	R-16

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

	Acknowledgment – Ref.No.9601/PDY/SN/2020- 21 dated 12.05.2020
17.	Reply letter addressed to the 1^stapplicant by the respondent bank for the applicants letter dated 09.05.2020 along with the Postal Receipt – Ref:9601/PDY/NPA/GURU/2020/04 dated 20.05.2020	R-17
18.	Reply letter addressed to the applicants by the respondent bank for the 1^stapplicant’s letter dated 06.07.2020 along with the Postal Receipt – Ref:19601/COMPLAINT/06072020/5 dated 22.07.2020	R-18
19.	Reply letter addressed to the applicant’s for their complaint dated 06.07.2020 addressed to Head Office, Bengaluru, Regional Office Chennai and Puducherry dated 05.08.2020	R-19
20.	Reply letter addressed to the applicant’s for their complaint dated 06.07.2020 addressed to Head Office, Bengaluru, Regional Office Chennai and Puducherry enclosing the letter dated 05.08.2020 along with the postal receipt and acknowledgement – Ref:19601/2020COMP/05 dated 24.11.2020	R-20
21.	Possession Notice issued by the Respondent Bank to the applicant’s along with the Postal Receipt dated 23.12.2020	R-21
22.	Paper publications in respect of the Possession Notice both in English and Vernacular Language i.e. Tamil dated 25.12.2020	R-22
23.	Memorandum of deposit of Title Deeds executed by the 1^stapplicant dated 22.12.2010	R-23
24.	Confirmation of second/subsequent Equitable Mortgage dated 03.03.2012	R-24
25.	Sale notices (3) issued to the applicants dated 19.08.2022	R-25
26.	Acknowledgements for the above said sale notices received from the 1^stapplicant dated 11.08.2022	R-26
27.	Paper publication for the above said sale notices	R-27
28.	Photo showing affixture of the sale notices	R-28
29.	Photos showing affixture of possession notices and postal receipts for the postal notices sent dated 24.12.2020	R-29

SA No.391/2022

05.12.2025

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶129

All that part and parcel of the property bearing Old Door No.42, New Door No.52, Aravindar Street, Pondicherry – 605 001 comprised in T.S.No.117, R.S.No.239 pt, Pondicherry Rev Village No.40, Ward “C”, Block No.15 Brick Built House, Measuring an extent of East-West on the Northern Side 4.80 Mtrs: Southern Side 4.20 Mtrs: South-North on both sides 15.75 Mtrs or total extent 763 Sq.ft or 70.87 Sq.Mtrs. along with easementary right of enjoying Eastern side of common pathway having an extent of EastWest 1 Mtrs, South-North 15.75 Mtrs or 169.5 Sq.ft total extent of 763 sq.ft. and Plinth area of 1526 sq.ft. Property owned by ANBE SANGEETHA with in the registration sub-district of Puducherry and district of Puducherry.

¶130

Boundaries:

¶131

On the North by: Sridhar’s mania property

¶132

On the South by: Aravindar Street

¶133

On the East by: Sangeetha and proposed seller’s brother Sridhar’s common lane.

¶134

On the West by: House comprised in T.S.No.118.

¶135

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

N Gurumurthy v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Gurumurthy v. Canara Bank

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

Idbi Bank versus Sreedharan

Canara Bank versus Dharma Pharmacy Pvvt Ltd. And Others

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Shri Freight and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus G R Industries

Union Bank of India versus Anjana

R Jothi versus Union Bank of India