Dismissed

Mrs M Rajini and Others v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

DRT24 Oct 2025SA/391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging SARFAESI enforcement measures. The court held that payments made after the NPA classification and Section 13(2) notice did not upgrade the account to standard, notices were properly served, and the confirmed auction stood final absent fraud.

What did the court decide?

Application challenging SARFAESI proceedings and foreclosure measures dismissed; auction confirmed; suit disposed of against applicants.

Mrs M Rajini and Others versus Iifl Home Finance Limited — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL. I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24\H DAY OF OCTOBER,2025

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

sA.No.3g1/2c23

¶5

Mrs. M. Rajani,

¶6

R/o.H.No.6-t-544 /16, Padma Rao Nagar, Opp: Dundoo Mansion, Secunderabad_5OOO2S.

¶7

Mr. M.N. Amar Veer,

¶8

Aged about 60 years, Occ: pvt. Service, R/o.H.No.6- I -344 / 16, padma Rao Nagar, Zamistanpur, Chilkalaguda, Secunderlabad, Beside Ankur Hospital, Hyderabad_50O025.

¶9

M/s. Sri Raja Rqjeswara Fuel Station, Rep. by its^prop. Mrs. M. Rajani, W/o. M.N. Amar Veer, H.No.6_1_344l 16, Padma Rao Nagar, Opp: Dundoo Mansion, Secunderabad_S0O025. Applicant.

¶10

Versus M/s. IIFL Home Finance Ltd., D.No.5-9-22 I B/50 1, Sft Ftoor, My Home Sarovar plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad - 500 OO4. Respondent. Counsel for tlrc Applicants Sn G.V. Krishnam Raju. Counsel for the Respondent Sn 1V.8. Sudarshan. Reserued on 09.09.202s Pronounced on 24.10.2025 Uploaded to Website on 24.10.2025

¶11

The frled on Application under section 17 of the rhdt,m&r102&i"e on of the Respondent to take

¶12

SA.No.391/2023

¶13

physical possession of the application schedule property by obtaining warrant in crl.M.p.No.2160 r2023 0n the file of the Ld. chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, pursuant to the possession Notice dt'09'08.2023, issued u/s.13(a) of the SARFAESI Act and the auction of the application schedule property conducted on 16.10.2023, pursuant to the e-Auction Sale Notice dt.2g.Og.2O2S.

¶14

The averments made by the Applicants in the application, in brief, are as under:-

¶15

The Applicant No. I as principal borrower ard Applicants No.2 & 3 as co-borrowers availed Housing Loan of Rs. l,O 4,gZ ,SOg / _ from the Respondent by mortgaging the application schedule propert5r in favour of the Respondent. The Applicants repaid all the loan installments. However, intermittently they were irregular in paying the EMIs due to market conditions, personal reasons and Covid_ 19 pandemic. As per the loan account, an amount of Rs.2,63,579/_ is balance in the installments and interest column, which amount is nothing but penal interest and other charges levied by the Respondent on daily basis and same is against the RBI guidelines. Even after classification of the loan account as NpA, the Respondent received an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and appropriated Rs.9,21,262.O0 on 3O.0g.2023, as shown in the statement of account.

¶16

ii) loan account as NpA

¶17

as the provisions of the

¶18

measures under the SARFAESI Act

¶19

illegally. The not deducted the subsequent payments Respondent, without serving

¶20

the without affixing the said notice on the pubiishing the said notice in ders in Crl.M.P.No.2 1 60 / 2023

¶21

SA.No.391/2023

¶22

on the file of Ld. CMM, Secunderabad, for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r, by suppressing various facts, particularry the statement of account and by l,ing a false affidavit.

¶23

iii) The Respondent has fa,ed to issue separate notices under Rule g(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Respondent did not serve Rule g(6) Notice on the Applicants. The Respondent has failed to affix the sare Notice on the schedule property in compliance of Rure g(7). The Respondent has not obtained proper valuation of the schedule property and fixed the reserve price as Rs. 1,5g,16,000/_ as against the value of the property i.e., Rs.2,32,73,600 /, which was valued by the Respondent before grant of the loan. The reserve price fixed by the Respondent is much less than the market value of the propert5z, which is Rs.2,O0,000/ per sq. yd., in the vicinity of the schedule property. The Respondent received Rs.10.00 lakhs on the pretext of regularizing the loan account from the Applicants on 30.0g.2023 and thereafter played fraud and failed to regularize the loan account. Hence, the SA.

¶24

J. The Respondent Iiled its Reply Statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the application. The contentions of the Respondent, in brief, are as under:-

¶25

The Applicants availed loan facilities to an extent of Rs.1,O4,97,3O9/- from the Respondent by mortgaging ttre application schedule property and thereafter, they committed default in pa5rment of EMIs and despite several reminders, they regular, which resulted in the as NPA. The contention of the all the instalments and only due to market conditions,

¶26

reagqs BBp m5,d arEln Payments are to be done as

¶27

SA.No-391/2023

¶28

per payment schedule as agreed upon in the Loan Agreement and the Applicaats cannot pay amounts according to their whims and fancies and even otherwise also the Applicants have failed to repay the loan amount. It is evident from the statement of account of the Respondent that as on 16.71.2023. the outstanding dues are to the tune of Rs.96,70,3o8.45ps. The Respondent is wen within their powers to impose such penal and other charges as the Applicants are defaulting the payment of EMIs and the additional charges are only in accordance with the Loan Agreement and Banking regulations. The Respondent issued Sec. f 3(2) notice dt.27.0 5.2023 demanding the Applicants to pay the outstanding dues and same was received by the Applicants. The Respondent has also published th said Sec.13(2) notice in "The New Indian Express and ,Andhra Prabha'newspapers dt.01.06 .2023. As the Applicants failed to make the payment, the Respondent issued possession Notice dt.09.08.2023, u/s.13(4) of the SARF.AESI Act, which notice was duly received by the Applicaats and was also published by the Respondent in 'The New Indian Express, and ,Andhra prabha, newspapers dt. 12.O8.2023.

¶29

ii)

¶30

The Respondent issued Auction Notice dt.29.0 8.2023, which was duly received by the Applicants and which notice was also duly published in 'The New Indian Express, and ,Andhra prabha, newspapers d1.31.O8.2023. The Respondent has conducted e_ auction of the schedure property on 16.10.2023 and the successful bidder in the said auction had already deposited 2So/o of the bid amount with the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent has ap CMM, Secunderabad and obtained orders d M.P.No.2l6Ol2023 for taking physical the e property. It is false to allege by the the t has filed false affidavit before the the facts inasmuch as all the relevant were produced before the Ld. CMM.

¶31

SA.No.391/2023

¶32

iii) The Applicants, without giving arry notice to the Respondent about advancement of the listing of the matter on 02.11.2023, obtained orders from this Tribunal on 02. I l.2O2S, wherein interim stay of all further proceedings, including taking physical possession of the schedule property by the Respondent through Advocate Commissioner, pursuant to orders in Crl.M.p.No.2160 /2023 on tJne file of Ld. CMM, Secunderabad, was granted subject to the condition of depositing of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Applicants in two installments of Rs.7,50,000 /- each on or before 16.11.2023 and on or before O1.12.2023 into the loan account of the Respondent. The Applicants have hled the present SA by concealing various material facts and so the present SA may be dismissed.

¶33

The Applicants filed Rejoinder to the Reply Statement filed by the Respondent denying all the contentions raised by the Respondent.

¶34

Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the Applicants frled his Written Submissions reiterating the version of the Applicants, as stated supra. Ld. Counsel, in his Written Submissions, further contended as under:-

¶35

The Respondent NBFC has violated the mandatory provisions of RBI guidelines i.e., 4.2.4 & 5, which deal with the regularization of the loal account as standard on payment of the dues as on the date. The said guidelines 4.2.5 of up-gradation of loan account, which is classified as NPA, reads as under:-

¶36

¶37

"If arrears of interest and pincipal are paid. bg the borrou_ter in tLe case of loan accounts classified as NPA, the acaunt should no longer be treoted as Non-performing and mag be classifi.ed as'Standard' account'.

¶38

,^{Ld. Counsel for the Applicants} has^placed his reliance of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Azad Singh e 0iT ?ir6'"

¶39

,iffp

¶40

SA-No.391/2023

¶41

Solanki Vs. Punjab National Bank", reported in MANU/DE/ 156812Ot6 (DEL), wherein it is held as under:_

¶42

"It follows that if anears of interest and principal are paid bg tle bonower in the cose of loan account ctassified as NpA 'acaunt should no longer be treated as non-performing and mag be clossified as^,standard, account, Tle emplwsis giuen bg the respondent Bank upon utord^,mag' is subject to the first limb, uherein a positiue declaration has been giuen to the effect *nt the account slnuld no longer be treated as^{,non-performing'.} thi,s being the position, the utord.^,mag, ocatning in the seanl limb, tus to be considered as sub-seruing to the first limb, wlrcre it is mandatory.

¶43

ii)

¶44

The Applicants filed 1A.No.253412023 seeking stay of all further proceedings, including taking physical possession of the schedule properties through Advocate Commissioner vide noticre dt.2l.lO.2O23, pursuant to the orders in Crl.M.p.No.2160/2023 on the file of Ld. CMM, Secunderabad, wherein this Tribunal was pleased to grant interim stay subject to deposit of Rs.15.00 lakhs in two insta-lments of Rs.7.50 lakhs on or before 16.11.2023 and on or before 01 . 12 .2023 directly into the loan account with the Respondent. The Applicants filed the stay petition against the Sale Notice dt.29.08.2)23 and this Tribunal was pleased to direct the Applicants to deposit 20% of the dues by the Applicant in two instalments, which were duly complied with by the Applicants.

¶45

iii) The Respondent filed Valuation Report showing valuation of the property in 2O2l at Rs.2,37,73,600/- and whereas there is .a/- .,, rmal increase in the propert5z rates during the years 2022 and, .'1 -^{'c)l' r.} Fixing the valuation of the schedule property at .:v ns.Igsf ,O00/-^{is nothing} but abuse of the process of SARFAESI law laid down by the Hon'blee Apex Court in^*Ram ?4 ",,Act^aqd ''tislru.r..", State of UP", reported in AIR 2O12 SC 2288. So, Ld.

¶46

*"':i# ,it:r:.'r'

¶47

SA.No.391/2023

¶48

counser for the Appricants prayed for setting aside the measures taken out by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property.

¶49

The Respondent frled its written Arguments reiterating the version of the Respondent as stated supra and rebutted the Applicants, contentions. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent further contended as under:_

¶50

The Respondent, with no procedural defect, has confirmed the auction in favour of the highest bidder and so same must be upheld and in this regard, Ld. counsel has placed his reliance in "cetir LLp Vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna & Ors (2O24)", wherein it is held that that once SARFAESI auction is confirmed and sale certificate issued, the purchaser obtains absolute rights, extinguishing the borrower, redemption.

¶51

ii) The Honble Supreme Court in "Valji Khimji & Co., Vs. Olficial Liquid.ator & Ors" (2008), held that the objections to a confirmed auction can only succeed in exceptional cases involving fraud, collusion or grave irregularity and in the present case there are no such faults and so the confirmed auction must remain undisturbed. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated in ,,V. S. palaniuel Vs. P. Siram" (2O2a), that the confirmed auctions should not be interfered with, barring serious procedural flaws like fraud or collusion and in the present case, with none such allegations made, the said decision cements the finality of the auction process. So, Ld. Counsel prayed for the dismissal of the present SA.

¶52

Ld' counsel for the Appricants filed his Reply Arguments reiteration the the Applicants and also the contentions raised by the Ld. Applicants in his Written Submissions. e rival submissions.

¶53

¶54

SA.No.391/2023

¶55

9, Now, the points that arise for consideration are,_

¶56

Whether the Applicants have made any valid grounds for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under the SARFAESI Act against the application schedule property?

¶57

ii) To what relieP

¶58

Polnt No.llb

¶59

The Applicants have not d.isputed availing of Housing Loan of Rs. 1,04,97,309/_ from the Respondent by mortgaging the application schedule property in favour of the Respondent. According to the Appricants, they repaid a[ the loan insta-llments arrd however, intermittently they were irregular in paying the EMIs due to market conditions, personal reasons and Covid_I9 pandemic. The Applicants further contend that, they have paid total principal a,d interest, except the penal charges debited into the account by the Respondent, which is legal and against the RBI guidelines. so, the Applicants contend that, the Respondent has wrongly and illegally classified their loan account as NpA as against the norms of RBI. The Respondent contend that, the Applicants were not regular in the payment of EMIs and despite severa-l reminders, the Applicants failed to regularize their loan account and as such the Respondent has classified the loan account as NPA and thereafter issued the statutory notice dt.27.0 s.2o2g u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent turther contended that, it is evident from the statement of account of the Respondent that as on 16.11.2023, the outstanding dues are to the tune of Rs.96,70,3o8.45ps., and that the Respondent is well within their powers to impose such penal charges as the Applicants are defaulting the payment of EMIs tional charges levied are only in accordance with the Loan g regulations.

¶60

¶61

1r 214.0ot,_rwt for the Applicants strenuously contended that the the entire overdue amount and as per clause 4.2.5

¶62

sA.No.391/2023

¶63

of the RBI Master circular, if arrears of interest and principal are paid by the borrower in the case of roan accounts crassified as NpA, the account should no longer be treated as Non-performing and may be classified as 'standard' account". In this regard, Ld. counsel for the Applicants has also placed his reliance on a decision of the Honbre High court of Derhi in "Azad Singh Solanki Vs. punjab National Bank", supra. So, Ld. Counsel contend that, as per the said RBI norms and the decision of the Honble High court, the loan account of the Applicants no longer remains as NpA and the Respondent ought to have up-graded the same as "standard" account and the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Respondent are illegal and so they are liable to be set-aside.

¶64

L2. Per conra, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that, the Applicants failed to pay the EMI as per the schedule and terms and conditions in the Loan Agreement and the Applicants cannot pay amounts according to their whims and fancies. So, Ld. Counsel contends that, the Respondent has righfly classified the loan account as NpA and the Respondent has every right to proceed under the SARFAESI Act to enforce the securit5r interest in respect of the application schedule property and the present SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶65

I have considered the rival submissions. As per the statement of account Iiled by the Respondent along with the SA, as on L6.71.2O23, ttre outstanding amount in the loan account of the Applicaats is Rs.90,7O,3O8.45ps. The loan account of the Applicants was classified as NPA on 06.05.2023. As per the Demand Notice d1.27.05.2023, issued u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, by the Respondent, the outstanding loan amount as on 08.05.2023, is Rs.1,03,40,120/-. The loan amount availed by the Applicants in the year 2O2l is Rs. 1,04,97,309/-. Even the admitted that intermittently they could not pay the EMI reasons, Covid- 19 etc. So, it cannot be said that, as

¶66

.^{.,on the} of the loan account of the Applicants, the

¶67

,;^zlffiTm :)

¶68

sA.No.391/2023

¶69

account was^(standard" and the Respondent has wrongry classified the account as NPA and invoked the SARFAESI measures.

¶70

L4. As regards the contention of the Ld. counsel with regard to clause 4.2.5 of the Master circular issued by RBI, there is no doubt even after the account has been crassified as NpA, once the borrower pays the overdue amount i.e., principal and interest, the account may be up_graded as "standard". As stated supra, it is clear that, the loan account of the Applicants was not standard and it has slipped into the category of NpA. According to the Applicants, they have deposited an amount of Rs. 10.oo lakhs with the Respondent on 3o.0g.2o23 and that the Respondent has appropriated Rs.9,2L,262.00, which is also evident from the statement of account. The said amount was deposited by the Applicants on 30.0g.2023, which is after issuance of Demand Notice dt.27.0s.2o23, issued by the Respondent u/s.13(2) of the SARPAESI Act. Now, the question that arises is whether the NPA account can be up-graded to 'standard'on payment of overdue arnount by the borrower after issuance of Demand Notice u/s. 13(2) ofthe SARFAESI Act?

¶71

r5. In Sravan Dall Mill (P) Ltd. v. central Bank of India, it was held by the Honbe A.P. High court that the subsequent payments by the borrower entitles him to upgrade the s?rid account and come out of NpA. The court observed that it was incorrect to presume that once an NpA is always an NPA and it was precisely for the said reason that Clause 4.2.4 (rrow 4.2.51 of the prudentia-l norms specihcally states that if interest and principal are paid by the borrower in case of roans classified as NpA, the said account should no longer be treated as NpA and may be classified as substandard

¶72

l',1 The inbs t u relevant judgment is " Chembeti Brahmaiah Ctatadary ,+,..' u. Stqte of ,^wherein the Hon'ble High Court of A.p., in said^judgment, has observed that the observations in j, PTT[?ohf ,e "Sravan Dall-Mitf cannot fairly be understood as laying down a iB- " qfu,*dd<'in 'r!Iv--.{l\Y//r xIEiiYj:_?''

¶73

SA-No.i91/2023

¶74

principle that payments made after the account had been validly classified as NPA and the proceedings initiated by issuing notice under Section r3(2) of the Act wourd have effect of upgrading the account and bringing out of the contours of NpA. It was further observed that where an account is classified as NpA and there is a time-rag between such classification and initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Act, if any payments are made and those payments have the effect of upgrading the account and bringing it out ofthe contours of NpA under the applicable prudential norms of the RBI (relating to assets classification), then and in such an event alone initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Act would be unsustainable as devoid of the jurisdictional factual basis for initiation of proceedings. The contention of the borrower ttrat NpA classification is a dynamic event to be computed every time a pa5rment is made into an account and even after a valid initiation of proceedings wourd frustrate the legislative philosophy underlying the provisions of the Act, which is intended to provide a speedy remedy to a secured creditor to realise its debts by enforcement of the security interest without the intervention of a court or tribunal, in respect of a secured asset."

¶75

It is very clear from the judgment of Hon,ble High Court of A.p., in "chembeti Brahmaiah cLnudary u. state of Hgd.erabad." after declaration of the account as NpA, once the secured creditor invokes the measures under the SARFAESI Act by issuing Sec. 13(2) Notice, if the borrower makes any payments, the NpA account cannot be upgraded. So, the contention of the Applicants that, the Respondent has failed to follow the Master circular on Prudential Norms, issued by the RBI, particularly clause 4'2.5, cannot be acceptabre and the Respondent-secured creditor has right to proceed under the SARFAESI Act against the secured

¶76

,s tions of the Applicants that they have not been er Sec. 13(2) & 13(4) and that the Respondent Bank Possession Notice on the secured asset and failed

¶77

SA.No.391/2O23

¶78

to publish the said notice in two newspapers is concerned, I have gone through the material documents frled by the Respondent in 1A.No.2534/2025 and tA.No.271Ol202l in the present SA, wherein the Respondent has filed releva,t documents. copies of Demand Notice dt.22.OS.2O23, issued u/s. f 3(2) and possession Notice dt.O9.Og.2O23, issued u/s. 13(4) of the Act, 2OO2, along with postal receipts and postal track reports, frled by the Respondent amply prove that the said notices have duly been served on the Appricants. The Respondent, in its material documents, has also filed a copy of photograph depicting affixture of Possession Notice on the schedule property and also copies of publication of Possession Notice in "The New Indian Express, and "Andhra prabha,, newspapers dt.12.O8.2O23, which prove that the Respondent has duly complied with Rule 8(1) & (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, while issuing the possession Notice dt.09.0 g.2O23.

¶79

As regards the next contention of the Applicants that they have not been served with Rule 8(6) notice and pubrication of Auction sare Notice in the newspapers is concerned, the Respondent has filed a copy of notice dt.29.08.2o23, issued u/r.8(6) along with postal receipts and postal track reports, from which it is clear that the Respondent has duly served Rule 8(6) Notice on the Applicants. The Respondent has also filed copies of publication of Auction Notice in the newspapers dt.31.0g.2023.

¶80

The next contention raised by the Applicaats is that, the Respondent has undervalued the property and that the reserve price of Rs.1,5g,16,000/_ fixed is much lower than the market price and that the actuar price in the vicinity of the schedule property per sq. yd is Rs.2,00,000/_ and that, the .|g-s.-f..-gndent^{without obtaining proper valuation} of the property, sold the

¶81

,rr1.[,t31a4$FpQ.e auction for a meagre price.

¶82

lfl.. t contended that, it has obtained Valuation Report from its l3p .gJ.r?.gJ..i d^Valrr Et^ei l^{before proceedingfor thesa.le of secured asset and as per}

¶83

24 thd VdriatiorrR\AdriatiorrR e pn or tf dr dt.25.08 )5 r}'., .2023, coo2 +ha tj'e^{pa-^^-r^6+} Respondent l.^^ has fixed the r:--^r fL - reserve--

¶84

SA.No.391/2023

¶85

price of the schedule property. So, the Respondent contends that there is no violation of Rule 8(5) of the Rules, 2002.

¶86

I have perused the Vaiuation Report dt.25.Og.2}23, filed by the Respondent and according to the said report, the market Fair Market value of the property is Rs.1,97,7o,390/- and Distress value is Rs.1,58,16,312/. As per the SaIe Notice dt.2g.LO.2O23, the Reserve price fixed by the Respondent is Rs. 1,5g, I 6,000 / _ i.e., the Distress Value of the property mentioned in the Valuation Report. The auction of the property was held on 16.10.2023 and the Respondent obtained valuation report on 25.08.2023, which less than two months before the date of auction. The Applicants except making some bald a,d vague statements that varue of Sq.yd., in the vicinity of the schedule property is Rs.2,00,0O0/, did not file aly documents to substantiate the same. So, it cannot be said that, the Respondent has not followed Rule 8(5) of the Rules, 2002. Tne Respondent sold the schedule property in the auction conducted on 16'10'2023 and conrirmed the auction in favour of the highest bidder in the auction. The Honbre supreme court in "cetir LLp u. sumati prasad. Bafna & ors.,", had' held that once a SARFAEsI auction is confirmed and sale certificate is issued, the purchaser obtains absolute rights, extinguishing the borrower,s redemption. The Honble Supreme court in "V.5. Palaniuel u.^p. Siram,, has reiterated that, confirmed auctions should not be interfered wittr, barring serious procedural flaws like fraud or corlusion' In the present case at hand, the Applicants did not establish any such flaws like fraud or collusion, except making some bald allegations.

¶87

'So, in vlew of my aforesaid discussion, I hold that, the decisions reried e Ld. Counsel for the Appticants do not apply to the facts and of the case and the Applicants have failed to make out a-Ily for setting aside the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the 2 4 0ffi.3ffi,a.d recover its dues from the Applicants by enforcing the over the application schedule property being the secured

¶88

SA.No.391/2023

¶89

asset. So, the present SA, which is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Applicants and in favour of the Respondent.

¶90

Polnt No,lll):-

¶91

In the result, the present Securitization Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶92

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concemed.

¶93

(DiddEd to the Pivdte secretdry, uonscribed by het' cotrecad, signed ond pronounced by me tn the open court on this the 2& doy ol octobet,

¶94

sd/(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶95

fr"Ew
Assf.
na1..i. t!W)F-RABl,D.

Mrs M Rajini and Others v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs M Rajini and Others v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

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

Sri Durga Bhavani Polymers versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Shravya Agencies versus Indusind Bank Limited

K Sarojana versus Apsfc

State Bank of India versus Dhaanwick Agro Mills

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sujatha Spices

P Devender Rao versus Union Bank of India