Dismissed

Ms Aiswariam Cars rep by Proprietor Mr Nandan v. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

DRT22 Jul 2025SA/575/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by borrowers against a bank's possession notice. It held that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act mandates a strict 45-day limitation period and expressly disallows the Tribunal's discretion to condone any delay, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application (SA No. 575/2024) was dismissed on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 45-day statutory limitation period under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Ms Aiswariam Cars rep by Proprietor Mr Nandan v versus Idfc… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 575 of 2024

¶8

M/s. Aiswariam Cars,

¶9

Rep by Mr. Nandan. V,

¶10

Door No.1/36, Old S, No.217/1B,

¶11

New S.No.388/7, S.No.248/1B,

¶12

Thandalam, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District,

¶13

Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 122.

¶14

And also: No.23/56, Kundrathur, Main Road,

¶15

Porur, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Balamurugan Temple, Kancheepuram, Chennai-Near Tamil Nadu-600 116.

¶16

Mr. Mugundan. V, Door No.1/36, Old S, No.27/1B,

¶17

New S.No.388/7, S.No.248/1B,

¶18

Thandalam, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District,

¶19

Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 122.

¶20

Also at: No.1/36, Vallalar Street, Thandalam,

¶21

Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu-600 122.

¶22

Mr. Nandan. V, Door No.1/36, Old S, No.27/1B,

¶23

New S.No.388/7, S.No.248/1B,

¶24

Thandalam, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 122.

¶25

Also at: No.23/56, Kundrathur, Main Road,

¶26

Porur, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Balamurugan Temple, Kancheepuram, Chennai-Near Tamil Nadu-600 116.

¶27

Also at: No.1/36, Vallalar Street, Thandalam, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu-600 122.

¶28

Mrs. Rukmani. V, Door No.1/36, Old S, No.27/1B, New S.No.388/7, S.No.248/1B, Thandalam, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 122. Also at: No.1/36, Vallalar Street, Thandalam, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu-600 122. ….Applicants

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

-Vs-

M/s. IDFC First Bank Ltd.,

¶34

A Company incorporate under the provisions of, Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered, Officer at M/s. IDFC First Bank Ltd., India Bulls Centre, Tower 2A & 2B, 10^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 and Branch office at Amarasri 3^rd Floor, No.455, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Represented by its Authorised Officer Mr. U. Magesh. ….Respondent

¶35

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶36

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. Murugan Counsel for respondent : M/s. S.K. Mariyappan

¶37

ORDER ON SA 575/2024

¶38

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 09.08.2024 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶39

The applicant has challenged the S.14 Order dated 25.03.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.500 of 2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.3,17,44,488.50/-

¶40

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶41

Though the applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Sec.14

¶42

Order 25.03.2024 passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpattu in

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

Crl.M.P.No.500 of 2024,is not within the period of 45 days from the date of measures and there delay of 91 days in preferring the SA.

¶47

The applicant invoked the jurisdiction in W.P.No.24320 of 2024 in challenging S.14 Order and sought for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Sec.14 Order in Crl.M.P.No.500 of 2024 dated 25.03.2024. The applicant also filed the SA challenging the Sec.14 Order before the DRT-3 Chennai, it was assigned in SA diary No.2098 of 2024, owing to some delay in filling the matter is not being listed before the Presiding Officer of the DRT.

¶48

The Hon’ble High Court directed DRT-3 Chennai to number the appeal in S.A (Diary) No.2098 of 2024, if it is otherwise found to be order, and place it before the Presiding Officer for consideration of the issue with regard to the delay in filing the appeal. Further the Tribunal was directed to pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, bearing in mind the fact that the CJM, Chengalpattu, had already directed the authorities to take possession of the property. Accordingly the writ petition came to be disposed of on 20.08.2024.

¶49

It seen from the records that the applicant has filled the SA on 09.08.2024 after the disposal of the WP.No.24320 of 2024. As per the direction, registry has numbered the SA and have placed before the bench for consideration on the delay.

¶50

In the limitation column, the applicant admits ought to have filed the SA within 45 days that is 25.03.2024 to 09.05.2024, as prescribed in sub-

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

section (1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the Sec.14 Order dated 25.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.500 of 2024. It is contented that the applicant was unaware of the Order passed by the CJM and it came to vacate the premises on 02.07.2024 consequent to obtaining the order from the concern court and filed the Sec.14 application.

¶55

The respondent bank has come on record and has filed detailed counter with supporting documents in support of the measures taken by them under the SARFAESI Act. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that advocate commissioner has not issued any letter to the applicant to vacate the premises pursuant to the Sec.14 order dated 25.03.2024. However the applicant contents that advocate commissioner had orally communicated to vacate. It seen from the records that there is no intimation issued by the advocate commissioner to vacate the premises, hence the cause of auction to challenge the Sec.14 order dated 25.03.2024 is not from 02.07.2024 as contended by the applicant herein.

¶56

Admittedly applicant is aware that the measure under challenge is not within the period of 45 days have conveniently submitted that he came to know about Sec.14 order only when the advocate commissioner communicated to vacate the premises on 02.07.2024. In absence of any advocate commissioner notice dated 02.07.2024 the auction of action to challenge Sec.14 Order dated 25.03.2024 commences from 25.03.2024and not from 02.07.2024 and evidently there is a delay of 91 days.

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

Though the applicant was aware of the office objections raised by the Registry in respect of the delay, the applicant obtained an order from Hon’ble High Court directing this Tribunal to numbered the SA if found to be in order and directed the Presiding Officer to decide the matter expeditiously. It seen from the records that the applicant has not filed any application to condole the delay on have not justified by supporting documents that the advocate commissioner has issued the notice.

¶61

It is the duty of the court first to adjudicate about the limitation in preferring the present SA as required under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶62

Infact applicant admits availing the Home Loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/and Working Capital Rs.47,76,662/- on 27.07.2018. It also an admitted fact that the EMIs were not paid regularly, hence the bank has classified the account as NPA. After the classification of account as NPA, the respondent have issued the Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 29.04.2022 demanded for repayment of entire outstanding amount of Rs.3,17,44,488.50/- payable upto 28.04.2022. The demand notice is admittedly received by applicant as per the postal track report produced at pg.12 of bank counter, which is duly received as per the acknowledged by the applicants.

¶63

The respondent also published the demand notice in The New Indian Express and in Dhinamani on 07.05.2022, as the borrower and guarantors /mortgager did not liquated the liability as demanded in Sec.13(2), the

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

bank as proceeded further and issued the possession notice dated 19.12.2023 which is also sent by registered post duly received as per the acknowledgement cards.

¶68

The possession notice is also affixed on the property and published in the two newspapers The New Indian Express and Dhinamani. Thus the documents produced by the respondent bank establishes the compliance Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the security interest rules. Though the applicant are in receipt of all the statutory notices did not raise any objection with regard to the payments made, the classification of account as NPA is not as per the RBI guidelines has now taken contentions while challenging the Sec.14 Order.

¶69

The applicant has evidently waved his right to challenge the measures under the SARFAESI Act within the 45 days including Sec.14 order within the period of 45 days.

¶70

Now, considering the delay application, the Tribunal is posed with the question whether the Tribunal can condone the delay under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act?

¶71

For appreciation of the facts S.17(1) is extracted as under: -

¶72

S.17(1):

¶73

Application against measures to recover secured debts (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter, [may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:

¶78

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.]

¶79

[Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section(1) of section.17.]

¶80

A reading of the above provision it is palpable that there is no provision made by the Parliament for condonation of delay in approaching the DRT against the measures, no matter whatever be the cause and howsoever justifiable it may sound. Unless power to condone delay is legislatively granted expressly or by inference, the Tribunal cannot condone delay. It is the indication of Parliament that one who wants to have redressed must knock the doors of DRT within 45 days and subsequently those doors should permanently stand closed. In other words, law does not come to the aid of those who are sleepy & late.

¶81

Thus, it is clear that any person aggrieved by any measures under Section 13[4] is required to approach the Tribunal under S.17 within 45 days from the date of the measure. Evidently, the present SA challenging the S.14 Order dated 25.03.2024 is not filed within the period of 45 days and the same is filed with a delay of 91 days.

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

This view of the Tribunal is confirmed by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Bank of Baroda – Vs.Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd, reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 671 , at para 12, observed that a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is provided for quick enforcement of the security is as under:

¶86

“ The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr. this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. It is unfortunate that proceedings where a property that has been brought to sale and third-party rights created under the provisions of the Act, have remained inconclusive even after a decade.”

¶87

Further the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Akshat Commercial Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kalpana Chakroborty has taken view that S.17 is mandatory and therefore the question of condoning the delay does not arise. If the Parliament intended that DRT should have power to condone delay, it would have enacted a provision like S.5 of Limitation Act to SAFAESI Act. As it consciously chosen not to do it clearly emphasis the purpose of the SARFAESI Act.

¶88

The Tribunal is of the view that DRT has no power to condone delay in an application under S.17 of the Act, as it is a special law for speedy recovery of money due to bank in enforcing the security available to them is reinforced at para 65 of the judgement of the

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors

¶93

[Mumbai][P] Ltd., reported in [2024] 2 SCC 1 at para 65 which is reproduced here under:

¶94

“The SARFAESI Act is a special law containing an overriding clause in comparison to any other law in force. The SARFAESI Act is a special law of recovery with a paradigm shift that permits expeditions recovery for the banks and the financial institutions without intervention of Courts. If the general law is allowed to govern in the manner as sought to be argued by the borrowers, it will defeat the very object and purpose….”

¶95

Therefore, it is obvious that when a special legislation grants aright of action it is subject to certain conditions and create a forum for its implementation, that right becomes exercisable on satisfying such conditions and not otherwise and Limitation period is one such condition.

¶96

It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it must be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Tribunal has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:-

¶97

"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds".

¶102

Hence, the legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation.

¶103

The question whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal can entertain an application under S.17 of the Act after 45 days of measure referred to in sub section [4] of S.13 is no more res integral.

¶104

The Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1797 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.22192 of 2007 in the case titled

¶105

K.PJayan vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd and

¶106

others decided on 31.08.2015 had categorically held that the power to

¶107

condone delay in entertaining an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is not conferred on the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It further held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot consider an application for

¶108

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The relevant paras is extracted as under:

¶109

“7. Referring to these provisions the contention urged before us is that since section 24 of the RDB Act makes Limitation Act applicable and as the DRT constituted under the RDB Act is conferred with jurisdiction under section 17, Limitation Act governs applications made in a proceedings under section 17 also. We are unable to accept this contention. Both the RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act are independent enactments, although certain provisions of the RDB Act are made applicable in respect of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act also. However, that does not mean that every provision of the RDB Act would apply to every proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. In so far as this case is concerned, proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI Act and in view of the provisions contained in section 17 conferring

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

jurisdiction on the DRT constituted under RDB Act application is made by the appellant before the DRT. That does not mean that provisions of section 24 of the RDB Act governing the proceedings taken thereunder would get automatically attracted to such proceedings before the DRT. Therefore, the contention raised relying on section 24 in so far as this case is concerned is only to be rejected and we do so. This is further clear from section 36 of the SARFAESI Act, which confines the applicability of the Limitation Act to measures under section 13(4) of the said Act.”

¶114

As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, an application against measures to recover secured debts, must be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken. It further observed that "The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security, which can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr, this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security.

¶115

Additionally in the instant matter the applicants have failed to make a case to condone each day’s delay in support of their case without any justifiable reasons. However, the delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds and in support of its view, the reliance is placed on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lingeswaran Vs. Thirunagalingam where it is observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed, if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

laches. The court also observed "The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.

¶120

The Tribunal also places reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Kailasam P – Vs.- The Karnataka Bank Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer

¶121

in Writ Petition No.11273 of 2024 (GM-DRT) has held that:

¶122

“law of Limitation fixes upon a particular period within which a party is entitled to institute legal proceedings and if he fails to do so, ordinarily the cause of action dies subject to just all exceptions. Law of Limitation is statute of repose. True it is that any welfare State like ours is bound in good faith to furnish its citizens all needful legal remedy however it is not bound to keep its Courts and Tribunals open ad infinitum. If an aggrieved person neglects or refuses to apply for redress within the prescribed period of limitation, his claim is lost in the lapse of time.”

¶123

In other words, the statutory time of 45 days provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act is mandatory and no discretion has been conferred upon the DRT to extend such period. It is pertinent to note that the Securitization Act is for quick enforcement of the security interest created favouring the respondent bank for the recovery of the amount due.

¶124

In fact the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder cast

¶125

an obligation upon the secured creditor for strict compliance of the

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. Each measure is to be followed meticulously giving a time frame to proceed further. Firstly, the measures can be initiated after the account is classified as NPA, then issuance of statutory notice ie., demand notice demanding outstanding due to be repaid within 60 days.

¶130

The secured creditor must wait for completion of 60 days and then proceeds further under S.13[4] possession notice which is challengeable within a period of 45 days. Similarly, the Order of CJM or DM is also to be challenged within 45 days. In other words, ample opportunity is granted by the Act for an aggrieved person to invoke his right of appeal under S.17 of the Act within a period of 45 days from the date of measure. The provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder puts the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor notices in advance before taking measures under Section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8 and 9, giving the aggrieved person ample of time and opportunities to assail measure within a period of 45 days.

¶131

Thus, the provisions of the Act and Rules ensures that the borrowers have advance notice of the proposed measure to be taken by the secured creditor. The judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda – Vs.- Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd

¶132

has given a quietus to the conundrum which existed until that time on the power of the DRT to condone the delay in filing an SA after the statutory period of 45 days provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act.

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

The Tribunal also places reliance on Order dated 27.06.2023 passed in MA [SA]32/2021 by the Hon’ble DRAT Chennai has held that the statutory period of 45 days in challenging the measures cannot be condoned. The further reliance of the judgment dated 13.06.2025 passed by Hon’ble DRAT Chennai in MA.[SA] 31/2022,wherein it is held that if an application under S.5 of Limitation Act is entertained in an application filed under S17 of SARFAESI Act,2002, it would derail the very purpose of the SAFAESI Act.

¶137

For the foregoing reasons, the applicant though was aware of the measures initiated by the bank has not preferred the SA within the period of 45 days resulting in dismissal of the SA fails.

¶138

Accordingly SA stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No

¶139

order as to cost. Sd/-

¶140

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

¶141

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 22^nd day of July, 2025)

¶142

ANNEXURES

¶143

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶144

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Sanction Letter issued by the Respondent Bank dated 27.07.2018.	A-1
2.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed No.5940/2020, SRO, Pammal dated 24.08.2018.	A-2
3.	Sanctioned Letter issued by the Respondent Bank dated 11.07.2020.	A-3

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

4.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed No.3542/2020, SRO, Pammal dated 14.07.2020.	A-4
5.	Demand Notice U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act along with postal Receipt & Tracking Consignment dated 29.04.2022.	A-5
6.	Possession Notice issued under rule 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule, 2002 dated 15.12.2023.	A-6
7.	Intimation After taking Possession as per Rule 4 (2A), along with postal Receipt & Track Consignment dated 19.12.2023.	A-7
8.	Fore Closure Statements dated 22.10.2024.	A-8
9.	Statement of Accounts A/c. No.16126173 dated 22.10.2024.	A-9
10.	Statement of Accounts A/c No.32748756 dated 22.01.2024.	A-10
11.	Petition and Affidavit filed under section 14 of SARFAESI Act dated 30.01.2024.	A-11
12.	Proof Affidavit filed by the Respondent before the CJM, Chengalpattu dated 13.03.2024	A-12
13.	Impugned Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.500 of 2024 by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpattu dated 25.03.2024.	A-13

¶149

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶150

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Copy of Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act along with postal receipt and tracking dated 29.04.2022.	R-1
2.	Copy of Paper Publication under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 07.05.2022.	R-2
3.	Copy of Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act along with photos dated 15.12.2023.	R-3
4.	Copy of Intimation of Possession Notice along with postal receipt and tracking dated 19.12.2023.	R-4
5.	Copy of Paper Publication under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 21.12.2023.	R-5
6.	Copy of Statement of Accounts dated 14.03.2025.	R-6
7.	Copy of Board Resolution dated 09.05.2023.	R-7

¶151

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

SA No.575/2024

22.07.2025

ITEM-1

All that part and parcel of the land and building comprised in Old Gramanatham Survey No.257/1B, New Gramanatham Survey No.388/7 of Thandalam Village, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and situated at Door No.1/36, Vellalar Street, with land extent of 5193 Sq.ft., and bounded on the;

¶157

North by : Property owned by Mr. Gajendira Mudaliar, South by : Property owned by Mr. T.D. Subbu alias Subburayan, East by : Property owned by Mr. Sreekailasanadha Swamy, West by : Vellalar Street.

¶158

ITEM-2

¶159

All that part and parcel of the land Comprised in Survey No.248/1B of Thandalam Village, Kancheepuram District with land extent of 25 cents (10 acres) and bounded on the

¶160

North by : Property owned by Mr. Chokkalingam, South by : Property owned by Mr. Sreekailasanadha Swamy, East by : Property owned by Mr. Sreekailasanadha Swamy, West by : Property owned by Mr. Chinna Mudaliyar and Mr. Gajendira Mudaliar.

¶161

Sd/-

¶162

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

Ms Aiswariam Cars rep by Proprietor Mr Nandan v. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Aiswariam Cars rep by Proprietor Mr Nandan v. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

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 Illamaran

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sivaprakash

Bank of Baroda versus Ayyanar Constructions

Gowri R versus Icici Bank Limited

K Devarajan Son of Kannan versus Dbs Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Raveendran