Dismissed

R Shanthi v. Tata Capital Limited

DRT9 Jul 2025SA/45/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application challenging a Section 14 order for possession, the Tribunal held that the applicant, having settled the mortgaged property with the borrower (her daughter), lacked locus standi. Observing that Section 14 powers are ministerial and non-adjudicatory, the Tribunal dismissed the challenge and refused interference.

What did the court decide?

The Security Application SA No. 45/2025 stands dismissed as the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the Section 14 order.

R Shanthi versus Tata Capital Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 45 of 2025

¶8

R. Shanthi, W/o. Radhakrishnan, Residing at, No. 2/352, Pugalendhi Salai, Mogappair East, Chennai – 600 037. ….Applicant -Vs-

¶9

M/s. Tata Capital Limited. (Earlier Known as Tata capital Financial Services Finance Ltd.,) Centennial Square 1^st Floor, 6A, Dr. Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Rep by Authorized Officer Mr. Rakesh Dawny Kokkattu.

¶10

Mr. P. Nanda Kumar S/o. Pattabi,

¶11

Mrs. Ammu W/o. P. Nandakumar

¶12

Respondents 2 and 3 residing at, No. 6/201, 2^nd Floor, 6^th Block, Mogappair East, Mogappair S.O. J.J. Nagar, Chennai – 600 037. ….Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A. R. Suresh V. Kaaviya Counsel for 1^st respondent : M/s. M. Arunachalam

¶15

ORDER ON SA 45/2025

¶16

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 26.12.2024 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

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

¶21

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the order dated 16.11.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.10748 of 2024 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.32,58,817/-

¶22

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶23

The applicant is married to one Mr. Radhakrishnan and out of their legal wedlock, 4 children were born namely, (1) Mrs. Karpagam (eldest daughter), (2) Uma Rani (Daughter) (Since deceased), (3) Mr. Thiyagrajan (Son), and (4) Mrs Ammu (Younger daughter). The said Uma Rani died without being marriage. We had arranged for marriage of the other 3 Children and accordingly marriage was solemnized in a respectable manner and all the three children are living with their respective spouses and children.

¶24

The retirement benefits of the applicant husband Mr. Radhakrishnan, had purchased a piece of land admeasuring 390 sq.ft in Plot No.2/352, Pugazhendi Salai, Mogappair East, Chennai -600 037 comprised in Survey No.308 Part and 309 part for a valuable sale consideration from one Mr. S. Rajendran Power of Attorney Agent of one Mr. Kuppusamy on 20.02.2006 and registered as Document No.696/2006 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Konnur. The applicant along with the husband constructed a small

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

house with ground floor +2 floors admeasuring 390 sq.ft in the Ground floor and 1^st floor and 150 sq.ft in the 2^nd floor.

¶29

The applicant Mrs. Karpagam is living in the Ground floor along with her husband and children. The applicant son Mr. Thiyagarajan is living in the 1^st floor along with his wife and children. The applicant along with the husband are living in the 2^nd floor in a small portion of 150 sq.ft without any separate kitchen but under the care and protection of their son Mr. Thiyagarajn.

¶30

The younger daughter namely Mrs. Ammu had been educated upto higher secondary level and married to Mr.P. Nanda Kumar who is a business man having vegetable shop in Koyambedu Market and other Businesses and had accumulating several properties.

¶31

However, Mr. P. Nanda Kumar was involved in any illegal business, but for that, a man with normal earing could not accumulate properties like this. Mr.P. Nanda Kumar was constructed a very big Bungalow type house in a large extent of land bearing Door No.6 /201, 6^th Block, Mogappair East, Chennai -600 037.

¶32

During June 2013, daughter Ammu had informed that, the business loss of husband and had arranged for loan with some of the banks which was sanctioned by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company for which they need a guarantor who possess some property. Hence requested me to come to the office of Sub Registrar office, Konnur to sign as a

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

guarantor and also requested to bring the Title document to show to the bank.

¶37

In January 2023, some people attached to the 1^st and 2^nd respondent bank came to my house and informed that, the said Mr. Nandakumar and the said Mrs. Ammu obtained loan form them and they were irregular in repayment of loan and stopped paying the EMI and hence the account was classified as NPA.

¶38

The applicant along with the husband and informed to our son what had happened who is residing in the 1^st floor and an auto driver by profession. And found that the Document signed by me during June 2013 is not as a witness, but a pucca settlement deed dated 20.06.2023 bearing Document No.2933/2013 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Konnur. Which was executed in favour of the 4^th respondent herein.

¶39

It is contented that there is no occasion for me applicant my husband to execute any settlement deed in favour of younger daughter she is already well settled. And 3^rd and 4^th respondent had obtained loan from the 1^st and 2^nd respondent bank by transferring balance of the loan from Cholamandalam Financial and Investments ltd for a higher value. Which came to my knowledge of the applicant after verifying encumbrance certificate through an advocate.

¶40

And on the Advice the filed a written complaint to the Inspector of Police, JJ Nagar Police station on 04.05.2023 and on enquiry, the police

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

personnel advise me to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

¶45

Accordingly the applicant approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai central, Revenue Division cum Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 by filling a petition under section 23 r/w 4 of the Act to cancel the document and estop the respondent 1 and 2 from proceeding with the property. However, the Tribunal has passed a mechanical order directing the 4^th respondent to maintain me till my life time interest vide order dated 29.09.2023.

¶46

Aggrieved by the said order the applicant had preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under sec.23 to cancel the illegal settlements. The 4^th respondent had acquired various properties such as (1) A Ground floor +3 floors Bungalow House Door No.201, 6^th Block, Magappair East, Chennai -600 037 approximately of more than Rs.2,00,00,000/- (2) A shop at shop No.F-4 (Tomato business), Koyambedu Wholesale Vegetable Market, Chennai-600 107, worth about Rupees 50,00,000/- (3) A house at Plot No.7766, EWS-A type, TNHB, Ayapakkam, Chennai- 600 077 Worth about Rs.30,00,000/- (4) House Plots at Elavur, Gummidipoondi worth about Rs.3,00,000/- (5) Two House Plots at Gururajapettai at Arakkonam worth about Rs.2,00,000/- and as such there is no necessity for the appellant to execute any settlement deed in favour of my younger daughter Mrs. Ammu with a specific condition to maintain myself and my husband. Ironically no such condition is stipulated or typed in the recitals in the so called

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

Settlement Deed dated 20.06.2013. Hence there is no requirement for any settlement deed to have been executed.

¶51

Further it came to the knowledge of the applicant that the 3^rd respondent is absconding and 4^th respondent had been tried to be contracted several times.

¶52

The applicant was shocked and surprise that the court appointed Commissioner came to house and pasted a notice to hand over a possession notice dated 27.05.2024 asking the applicant to vacate handover vacant possession on or before 27.12.2024 on Friday. It is learnt that the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur had appointed a Commissioner in proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 bank under section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act.

¶53

The Act of the 1^st and 2^nd respondent are illegal, unreasonable, being violative of rules and principles of natural justice. As there is no epicases remedy the applicant has approached the Tribunal Challenging the sec.14 order.

¶54

In the grounds its contented that the CJM as failed to consider that the applicant is the 3^rd party to the loan transaction and has not consider the appeal file by the applicant against the order of the revenue district divisional officer. The CJM has not consider that the 3^rd respondent owns several other properties in the nature of building and the present are application filed by the respondent bank is illegal, the CJM without enquiry about the 1^st respondent as to how the loan was sanctioned on the

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

settlement deed has been acted upon which can be evidenced from the payment of property tax.

¶59

As there was no occasion to settle the property where, she and her husband along with their son. And as failed to consider the inefficiency and incompetency of the part of the 1^st respondent to verify the ownership and pass the order. Hence prays to set aside the sec.14 order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P. No.10748 of 2024.

¶60

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶61

The respondent as filed detailed counter contenting that the second respondent Nanda Kumar along with 3^rd respondent Mrs. Ammu approached them for balance transfer to existing loan facility with Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Accordingly the 1^st respondent sanctioned a loan of Rs.27 Lakhs and 2^nd and 3^rd respondents had entered into a Loan Agreement dated 27.01.2015 vide Loan account No.4657451.

¶62

The loan was repayable in 180 monthly installments of Rs.38,748/-. The 3^rd respondent created mortgage of the property by Memorandum of Deposited of Title Deeds dated 06.07.2015 which is registered Doc.No.3375/2015 and the office of the Sub-Registrar Konnur. As the borrowers default in the repayment the loan was restructured on 07.07.2021 vide Restructured Loan Account No.TCFLA0404000011082760. Wherein the tenure is revised to 242 months and the revised disbursement

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

amount is Rs.25,27,518.88/-. The 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents availed 12 months moratorium during Covid pandemic from 09.07.2021 to 09.06.2022.

¶67

It is the case of the respondent that the present SA is not maintainable as the applicant Mrs. R. Shanthi is neither a borrower nor an aggrieved person. And the applicant does not have any locus standi to file the present SA. The owner of the property is the 3^rd respondent who is also the Co-borrower. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents committed default in the repayment, the 1^st Respondent classified the loan account as NPA on 07.01.2024 as per Sec.2(o) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶68

The applicant have settled the schedule property in favour of the 3^rd respondent vide Doc.No.2933/2013 dated 20.06.2013 which is registered on the file of Sub-Registrar Konnur. As the 3^rd respondent is the daughter of the applicant. The applicant had not denied the signature in the registered settlement deed and hence the applicant cannot question the settlement deed in favour of the 3^rd respondent.

¶69

The respondent submits is not aware of the details of the family members and the application schedule property was purchased from one A. Kuppusamy through his power Agent S. Rajendran on 20.02.2006 vide registered document bearing No.696/2006 on file of Sub-Registrar Kannor. The 1^st Respondent have transferred loan from Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., and have sanctioned the loan and based on the

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

settlement deed dated 20.06.2013 the loan facility was granted in favour of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent.

¶74

The applicant was not aware of the content of the documents cannot be accepted. And the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent in collusion with the applicant in order to defeat the interest of the 1^st respondent and also to loot the public money as filed the present SA.

¶75

The applicant is aware of the proceeding initiated by the 1^st respondent to back in January 2023. As the demand notice and possession notice was issued to the 3^rd respondent at the same address and the possession notice was also based on the property. As contented is applicant his residing on the property he should have challenged the possession notice and have been salient till the respondent have obtained sec.14 order.

¶76

Though the applicant came to know about the registered mortgage in the year 2015 on the encumbrance certificate. However, as not challenged not had approached the 1^st respondent and mortgage created. The applicant had approached the RDO Chennai Central to cancel the settlement deed dated 20.06.2013 vide Doc.No.2933/2013. Which came to be dismissed and the applicant have preferred the appeal before the District Collector Chennai which is pending as per the averments made in the SA. However the 1^st respondent is not made a party to the appeal and parties to the together.

¶77

The applicant is aware of measures taken on the 1^st respondents as followed all the rules as per the SARFAESI Act. And have filed the Sec.14

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

application to take the physical possession. The respondent denies all the averments and the SA contenting that the applicant is not a party to proceedings before the Hon’ble CJM, Thiruvallur and as the loan is availed by respondent 2nd and 3rd. The applicant purposely failed to inform the proceeding before the RDO.

¶82

The bank have proceeded secured assert mortgage to them and cannot proceed against other properties of the borrower and registered settlement deed is a valid title document and there is no necessity for the 1^st respondent to provide any other supporting documents. The contention that the 1^st respondent to check the validity of the settlement deed or their financial background for the necessity of settle the property infavour of one of the daughter of the applicant does not arise.

¶83

The settlement deed is clearly mentioned that out of natural love and affection for her daughter, the applicant had executed the settlement deed into 3^rd respondent in the year 2013 and he availed by the loan from Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., in the year 2013 and balance transfer was taken up by the 1^st respondent in the year 2015 all were done within few days period and there is nothing inappropriate in that.

¶84

As the bank has filed all the documents in support of the measures and submits that as 11.03.2025 the 2^nd & 3^rd respondent are liable to pay a sum of Rs.37,13,962/-. Hence prays for dismissal of the SA.

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

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

¶89

case.

¶90

It is manifest from the records that applicant is the mother of the 3^rd respondent who is the Co borrower and mortgagor availed the loan along with 2^nd respondent from the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondent approached the Cholamandalam Investment seeking for transfer of the existing loan facility and the 1^st respondent sanctioned the loan of Rs.27 Lakhs vide loan agreement dated 27.01.2015, which was to be repaid in 180 installments of Rs.38,748/-. The 3^rd applicant has mortgaged the property by memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 06.07.2015 which is registered Doc.No.3375/2015 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Konnur.

¶91

The 2^nd and 3^rd respondent defaulted in repayment of loan, hence the secure creditor has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant is neither and borrower nor an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to challenge the Sec.14 order passed by the Hon’ble CJM in Crl.M.P. No.10748 of 2024.

¶92

Infact the applicant as mother had settled the property in favour of the 3^rd respondent who is the daughter vide Doc.No.2933/2013 dated 20.06.2013 and the 3^rd respondent mortgaged the property based on the settlement deed and have deposited the title deeds creating mortgage of the property.

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

The contention of the applicant that she was not aware that she executed the settlement deed cannot sustain as she has executed the settlement deed in favor of her daughter to help her to obtain loan to wriggle out the business loss experienced by her son-in law the 2^nd respondent herein as contended in the SA averments. Further the applicant executed the settlement deed which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar was fully aware of the transaction and now cannot come up frivolous contentions about to the details of the family members and denying the documents executed.

¶97

Infact the applicant after executing the settlement deed has as no right and title over the property. The applicant is aware of all the measures which is taken by the respondent as the statuary notice were issued and affixed on the property, the applicant admittedly is residing along with her husband are living in the second floor of the property as per SA averments.

¶98

Due to default in the repayment by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent, the e 1^st respondent have initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and have issued the Sec.13(2) demand notice which is sent by RPAD. However the notices returned “unclaimed”. Hence, the demand notice was pasted on the property on 02.02.2024 additionally demand notice is also published in English and Tamil Newspaper.

¶99

Inspite of knowledge of the measures of the measures taken by the respondent, the borrowers and mortgager did not liquidate the liability, bank issued the possession notice dated 27.05.2024, affixed the notice on

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

the property, published in the newspapers on 30.05.2024. But the borrower and guarantor did not come forward to repay the entire liability, hence bank has filed the Section 14 application which came to be allowed vide order dated 16.11.2024 which is challenged by the applicant herein.

¶104

The applicant after executing the settlement deed favoring her own daughter now cannot content that she did not execute the deed and it is also seen that they also filed the written complaint in the JJ Nagar Police station on 04.05.2023 and on enquiry, the police advised them to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

¶105

Accordingly the applicant has filed the petition to cancel the document and restrain the 1^st respondents proceeding against the property. However applicant has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal to cancel the illegal settlements. However there is no such recital in the settlement deed which has been executed by the applicant and it seen that the same is executed out of law and affection for the 3^rd respondent who is the daughter of the applicant.

¶106

Applicant has failed to make out the case to establish right, title and interest over the property after the settlement deed was executed. Hence it is concluded that applicant is 3^rd party to the loan transaction and also to measure initiated by the respondent bank. Hence the applicant as 3^rd party without having any title and interest of the property cannot frustrate the measure taken by the respondent bank under the Act.

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

It is matter of record the applicant has filed the SA by not remitting the prescribed fee in challenging the S.14 Order claiming to be a third party. On payment of the deficit fee, the case was taken up for consideration. Though applicant has taken notices on 2^nd and 3^rd respondent, the notices are returned with an endorsement as ‘address not known’. It is apt to mention that the address to which notices were sent and the address in the cause title are the same in the notices issued under the SARFAESI Act also. The non-representation of 2^nd and 3^rd respondent in the instant matter indicates that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent has put up the applicant to challenge the measure as a third party and made an attempt to void the payment of requisite court fee and also to dodge the payment of conditional payment in case of any stay being passed.

¶111

Now considering the challenge to S.14 Order, it is appropriate to mention the declaration of The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments has held that the power of Designated Court under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, 2002 is ministerial and nonadjudicatory in nature and the process to be followed under Section 14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind.

¶112

It is apt to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Others ,

¶113

held that while exercising power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, District Magistrate or even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between secured creditor and debtor.

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

Further the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra has held that Court is only required to verify the affidavit of Secured Creditor filed in pursuance of the proviso to Section 14 and nothing more. The above Bombay High Court judgment has since been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v.

¶118

Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶119

“Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the matter once all the requirements Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal”.

¶120

Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act statuses that no action taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (or any officer authorized by them) under S.14 can be challenged in court or before any other authority. This provision ensures that the authority of these officials in enforcing security interests is final and not subject to further review.

¶121

47. T hus, the S. 14 order in Crl. M.P. No. 10748/2024 dated 16.11.2024 is passed in compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix] is only an execution order where no adjudication is required.

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal is not inclined to interfere in the S.14 Order as it is passed after due consideration of the application, followed by Affidavit and the documents in compliance of the procedures has considered and allowed the application which does not requires any intervention from this Tribunal.

¶126

Accordingly, SA 45/2025 stands dismissed holding that the applicant is a third party who has no locus to challenge the measures initiated by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost. Sd/-

¶127

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

¶128

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 9^th day of July, 2025)

¶129

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶130

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Settlement Deed dated 20.06.2013	A-1
2.	Deed of Receipt dated 24.06.2015	A-2
3.	Deed of Receipt dated 24.06.2015	A-3
4.	Deed of Simple Mortgage dated 06.07.2015	A-4
5.	Police Complaint dated 04.05.2023	A-5
6.	Proceedings of the RDO dated 29.09.2023	A-6
7.	Appeal before the District Collector dated 11.12.2023	A-7
8.	Possession Notice dated 27.05.2024	A-8
9.	Impugned Order dated 16.11.2024	A-9
10.	Proceedings of the District Collector dated 11.12.2024	A-10
11.	Letter from Advocate Commissioner dated 20.12.2024	A-11
12.	Property Tax Receipts	A-12
13.	Metro Water and Sewerage Connection receipts	A-13
14.	Gas Bill receipt	A-14

SA No.45/2025

09.07.2025

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 1^st RESPONDNET

¶135

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Copy of Board Resolution dated 25.10.2024	R-1
2.	Copy of Loan Application	R-2
3.	Copy of Loan Agreement dated 27.01.2015	R-3
4.	Copy of General Power of attorney dated 26.05.2005	R-4
5.	Copy of Sale deed Doc. No. 696 of 2006 dated 20.02.2006	R-5
6.	Copy of Settlement Deed Doc No. 2933 of 2013 dated 20.06.2013	R-6
7.	Copy of MODT vide Doc. No. 3375/2015 dated 06.07.2015	R-7
8.	Copy of 13(2) notice under SARFAESI Act with postal receipts, Unclaimed Acknowledgement Cards and return cover dated 30.01.2024	R-8
9.	Copy of Demand Notice pasting photos dated 02.02.2024	R-9
10.	Copy of 13(2) Paper Publication in English & Tamil Newspaper dated 22.03.2024	R-10
11.	Copy of Possession Notice with Postal receipts and Acknowledgement cards dated 27.05.2024	R-11
12.	Copy of 13(4) Paper Publication in English & Tamil Newspaper dated 30.05.2024	R-12
13.	Copy of Possession Notice Pasting photos dated 27.05.2024	R-13
14.	Copy of order in Crl. M.P. No. 10748/2024 dated 16.11.2024	R-14
15.	Copy of Statement of Accounts dated 11.03.2025	R-15
16.	Copy of Foreclosure Statement dated 11.03.2025	R-16

¶136

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶137

All that part and parcel of land and building within Thiruvallur District, Ambattur Taluk, Mogappair Village in the sanctioned plan of M.U.D.P Project II, bearing Plot No. 2/352 comprised in Survey No. 308 part and 309 Part measuring to an extent of 390 Sq.ft. and bounded by

¶138

North by: Primary School South by: 16 Feet Road Sd/East by: Plot No. 351 (S.V. GOWRAMMA) West by: plot No. 353 PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

R Shanthi v. Tata Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Shanthi v. Tata Capital 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

State Bank of India versus Rajeswari

Central Bank of India versus M Karthick

Canara Bank versus M/S Maarvel Homes

M s K Enterprises versus Canara Bank

saminathan versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Govindaraju versus Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited