Dismissed

Saminathan v. Uco Bank

DRT9 Jul 2025SA/614/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the auction sale of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove the property was agricultural land utilized for agricultural purposes at the time of mortgage, and thus the enforcement proceedings were valid.

What did the court decide?

Sale held on 30.08.2023, issuance of sale certificate, and all measures taken by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act were upheld.

Saminathan versus Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.614/2023

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. 614 of 2023

¶8

Saminathan

¶9

No.33, Sengunthar Street, Kanuvapet, Villianur, Pondicherry – 605 110. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

UCO Bank,

¶12

Represented by its Authorised Officer, Bazar Branch,

¶13

21, Jawaharlal Nehru Street,

¶14

Pondicherry – 605 008.

¶15

Mr. Vidjeragavane Son of Mr. Krishnan No. 4, 5, Jeeva Street (extn), Muthiraiyarpalayam, Thattanchavady, Thattanchavady, Puducherry – 605 009. ….Respondents

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Antony L.X. Selvam Counsel for 1^st respondent : M/s. R. Selvakumar

¶18

ORDER ON SA 614/2023

¶19

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 12.10.2023 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short

¶20

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.614/2023

09.07.2025

The applicant has challenged the Sale held on 30.08.2023 pursuant to E-Auction Sale Notice dated 26.07.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.1,55,49,000/-

¶25

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶26

The applicant is the guarantor to the loan availed by M/S Nathan Steel Profiles Pvt Ltd; the 1^st respondent is the authorized officer of the UCO bank and the 2^nd respondent is the auction purchaser who is the highest bidder in the auction held.

¶27

3.1. It is the case of the applicant that he mortgaged the property by memorandum of deposit of title deeds pertaining to agricultural dry land comprised in New Survey No.257/5-0.30.3 hecters, old survey No.423-1 with an extent of 0.67 cents Agricultural Land situated at Thindivanam Registration district, Registration sub-district of Vanur, Poothurai Revenue village in Poothurai District.

¶28

3.2 The Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983, extends to Vannur Taluk of Villupuram District vide G.O.(Ms) No.248 dated 15.05.2000 and the Patta Pass Book Act deals with issuance of Patta for Agricultural Land.

¶29

3.3 Under the Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act, it is duty of the owner of the land to produce the Patta Pass Book before the credit agency under section 9 of Patta Pass Book Act. The Obligation of the credit agency under section 9 in not complied hence it is not all in compliance to terms of section 9 of the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook. In terms of section 9 of the Act, Patta

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

Passbook for the agricultural properties mortgaged was produced by the applicant to the credit agency.

¶34

3.4 The property mortgaged by the applicant in the year 2017 after four years, the Manager UCO bank Bazar Branch, Puducherry by Letter UCO/BAZPON/ADV/2021-22/98(a) dated 01.10.2021 and

¶35

UCO/BAZPON/ADV/2021-22/105(a) dated 02.11.2021 wrote to the borrower to replace the security given by the applicant as the same was an agricultural land or to convert the land and to make it complaint under the SARAESI Act. As the bank is unable to accept the property as security as it is against the policy/scheme guidelines of the Bank and SARFAESI guidelines.

¶36

3.5 The applicant promptly repaid dues and due to global recession and Covid 19 there were default and the respondent bank contrary to their earlier communications letter UCO/BAZPON/ADV/2021-22/98(a) dated 01.10.2021 and UCO/BAZPON/ADV/2021-22/105(a) dated 02.11.2021 despite being fully aware that the property cannot be enforced is an agricultural land issued Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 12.12.2022 demand a sum of Rs.1,72,04,860.99/- due as on 29.11.2022 to enforce an agricultural land.

¶37

3.6 Some persons claiming to be purchaser of the applicant’s agricultural property were cleaning and on enquiry it was informed they had purchased the property in the sale held on 30.08.2023 and sale certificate was also issued to them by the authorized officer UCO Bank and it was also

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

registered and it was then the applicant came to know the authorized officer had published E-Auction Sale Notice dated 26.07.2023 and sold the applicants agricultural lands was sold on 30.08.2023.

¶42

3.7 The applicants submits that he was not served with any sale notice and the description of the secured asset intended to be enforced in their demand notice and sale notice published includes (material storage/industrial shed) Whereas in the memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by the applicant and the sale certificate issued by the authorized officer UCO bank the (material storage/industrial shed) is left out which would go to show that the property is an agricultural land.

¶43

3.8 The applicants aggrieved by the sale held on 30.08.2023 based on the sale notice dated 26.07.2023 the present SA is filed contenting that the mortgage is an agricultural land exempted under section 31(i) of the Security Interest Act, 2002 read with the Tamilnadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and hence the sale held on 30.08.2023 and is liable to be set aside.

¶44

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶45

The respondent bank has filed the counter contenting that the applicant is the guarantor to the loan availed by M/s. Nathen Steel Profiles Pvt. Ltd. The company availed various credit facilities including working capital cash credit, working capital Term Loan facilities from the 1^st respondent bank.

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

4.1 The applicant has guaranteed the due repayment of the loan availed by the M/s. Nathan Steel Profiles Pvt Ltd, executed two MOTD (Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds) bearing Document Nos.1261/2018 and 3365/2020 which is registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Vanur.

¶50

4.2 The Loan account became NPA on 29.11.2022 as per the RBI guidelines and the outstanding amount dues is aggregating to Rs.1,72,04,860.99 due as on 29.11.2022. After the classification account of NPA the bank has issued Sec.13(2) demand notice on 12.12.2022 which sent by RPID and same is returned unserved with endorsement as “UNCLAIMED” 22.12.2022.

¶51

4.3 The demand notice was published in The New Express (English) and in Tamil Edition of Dinamani on 20.12.2022. The bank as issued the Sec.13(4) possession notice on 04.03.2023, published in the New Indian Express and in Tamil Edition of Dinamani on 09.03.2023 and is also affixed on the property. The notice sent to the address returned unserved with endorsement to the applicant as “Left” and “UNCLAIMED”.

¶52

4.4 As the payment were not forthcoming, the 1^st respondent proceeded by taking the valuation of the secured assets on 12.06.2023 and issued the E-Auction sale notice dated 26.07.2023 fixing the reserve price at Rs.144.46 lakhs for the recovery of outstanding amount due at Rs.155.49 lakhs as on 12.06.2023, inclusive of interest up to 31.10.2022 along with further interest.

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

4.5 The E-Auction was conducted on 30.08.2023, the 2^nd respondent was declared as successful bidder for a sum of 1,45,46,000/- and the sale certificate was issued on 20.09.2023 which is registered as Document No.6338 of 2023 in favour of the successful auction purchaser the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶57

4.6 After the registration of the Sale Certificate, the applicant has filed the present SA No.614 of 2023 on 10.10.2023 contending that the property is an agricultural land by pointing out to a letter from the 1^st respondent dated 02.11.2021 wherein the details was sought from the M/s. Nathan Steel Profiles Pvt Ltd, the borrower to submit a proof that the collateral security offered is not an agricultural one.

¶58

4.7 The applicant is relying on G.O.(Ms)No.248 Revenue Department dated 15.05.2000 and Letter dated 02.11.2021 to substantiate their stand that the property is Agricultural land which has no legal sanction. The letter is only asking them to produce proof as at the time of creating the mortgage same is not an agricultural in nature. The law is settled in terms of 3 Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court in a full bench judgment dated 20.07.2018 in the matter of Indian Bank –Vs- K. Pappireddiyar has categorically held that whether a parcel of the land is agricultural or not must be deducted as a matter of fact from the nature of land, the use to which it was being put on the date of the creation of security interest and the purpose for which it was set apart. In the Blue coast Hotels case whether the land is agricultural has to be determined on the basis of the

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

totality of facts and circumstances including the nature and character of the land.

¶63

4.8 The 1^st respondent never sought a replacement of the security but had written to the borrower to produce proof that the property is not agricultural in nature though the SRO records shows as agricultural and the vacant land is adjacent to the Pipidic industrial corridor for which security was created is twisted to suit the convenience of the applicant.

¶64

4.9 The averments in Para No.3 and 4 are incorrect merely producing the G.O.(Ms) No.248, dated 15.05.2000 for issuance of the Patta under Patta Passbook Act has no relevance whatsoever and the letter from the 1^st respondent Bank has sought clarification from the borrower as to the nature of the land though at the time of creation of security interest. Before the Apex Court has further held and specifically observed and held after considering the object and purpose of section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act that merely because in the revenue records the secured properties are shown as agricultural land is not sufficient to attract section 31(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶65

4.10 The Apex Court further observed that no security interest can be created in respect of agricultural lands yet it was created, goes to show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural and the debtor offered the land as security on this basis based on the Judgment of the Blue Coast Hotels Ltd & K. Pappireddiyar case. Therefore, the averments has got relevance whatsoever.

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

4.11 Further the Photographs of the land shows that it is a Land adjacent to Pipdic Industrial Estate on the Main Road surrounded by a compounded wall which is barren and no agricultural activity is taking place in the said lands and applicant has applied and obtained building plan approval for constructing a building on 28.03.2022 in S.No.257/5, before the President, Poothurai Panchayat and the Proceedings dated 25.03.2022 building sanction and the receipt establishes that the property is not an agricultural property as alleged but applicant is trying to give a picture as if the property is agriculture in nature. Hence prays for the dismissal of the SA.

¶70

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶71

The applicant is the guarantor to the loan availed by M/s. Nathen Steel Profiles Pvt Ld., has mortgaged agricultural dry land comprised in New Survey No.257/5-0.30.3 hecters, old survey No.423-1 with an extent of 0.67 cents Agricultural Land situated at Thindivanam Registration district, Registration sub-district of Vanur, Poothurai Revenue village in Poothurai District.

¶72

5.1 The specific contention of the applicant is that the property mortgaged is an agricultural land which is exempted under S.31[i] of the SARFAESI Act and as per the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, it is duty of the owner of the land to produce the Patta Pass Book before the credit agency under section 9 of Patta Pass Book Act and the credit agency has not complied S.9, hence there is no security.

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

5.2 The applicant being the mortgagor has mortgaged the property before the Sub Registrar Vanur way back in 2018 and as per the bank valuer report it is mentioned that property mortgaged is deemed agricultural land, hence respondent bank requested the borrower to provide with proof that the property is not an agricultural land vide letter dated 01.10.2021 which is heavily relied upon by the applicant to contend that the bank was aware that the property mortgaged is an agricultural land.

¶77

5.3 It is seen that the respondent bank vide Letter UCO/BAZPON/ADV/2021-22/98(a) dated 01.10.2021 and

¶78

UCO/BAZPON/ADV/2021-22/105(a) dated 02.11.2021 wrote to the borrower to replace the security given by the applicant as the same was an agricultural land or to convert the land and to make it complaint under the SARAESI Act. However the applicant has not acted upon to the said letter

¶79

which clearly indicates that the property is not an agricultural land. As the applicant had mortgaged the property with an intend to create mortgage it is evident that the land was not an agricultural land at the time of creation of mortgage.

¶80

5.4 Further the photographs produced by the respondent page 71 of their type clearly reflects a compounded fall on the property and there are no agricultural activists being carried on. The applicant reliance on the respondent letter would not come to their aid nor the applicant has established that the property mortgaged is an agricultural land.

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

5.5 The reliance of patta bank would only indicates that the charge created on the agricultural land be entered in the pass book by the credit agency. In the instant matter application has not produced the patta book to establish that the property mortgaged is an agricultural land and the same is recorded as per S9 of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act,1983. S.9 is extracted as under:

¶85

S.9 Presentation of patta book before credit agency. –(1) Every owner of the land taking financial assistance or a loan from any credit agency on security of land, shall produce the patta pass book relating to his land to such credit agency. The credit agency shall cause the necessary entries being made in the patta pass book, giving particulars of such financial assistance or loan and the charge or mortgage created by the owner in respect of the land in the respective columns provided in the patta pass book, in such manner as may be prescribed. A copy of the extract of the said entries shall also be sent by the credit agency to the Tahsildar within such period as may be prescribed. On receipt of such copy of extract, the Tahsildar shall make the necessary entries of the grant of such financial assistance or loan and the creation of charge or mortgage in respect of the land held by such owner in the Register of Patta Pass Book maintained by him.

¶86

5.6 Thus it is clear that the Tashildar shall make entry about the charge created by the credit agency. As the property is not agricultural land, the owner has not produced the patta book for the respondent to comply with S.9 of the Act and the said contention also fails.

¶87

5.7 The Hon’ble Apex Court the landmark judgment “ITC vs Blue Coast Hotels ”, held it is the utilisation of the land or the categorization in Development rules, rather than the revenue records, which determine the nature of land for the purpose of enforceability of SARFAESI. Further it is also held that no security interest can be created in respect of

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

agricultural lands and yet it was so created, goes to show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and the debtor offered the land as security on this basis.

¶92

5.8 As per the Section 31(i) the term agricultural land is intended to protect the agriculturist from the Act, and is to protect the agriculturists from losing their source of livelihood of income from the agricultural land under the drastic provision of the Act. Further it is also to deter the creation of security interest over the agricultural land as defined in Section 2(zf). Hence it is held that the security interest cannot be created in respect of the property specified in Section 31(i) of the Act.

¶93

5.9 In the instant matter, though the applicant contends that the property is agricultural land has not produced the vital documents to establish the nature of the property is agricultural and there are agricultural activities being carried on the secured asset. The Tribunal places reliance of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Blue Coast

¶94

Hotels Limited and Others and K. Pappireddiyar and Another ,

¶95

where it is held that merely revenue records reflects that secured properties are shown as agricultural land is not sufficient to attract Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶96

5.10 In the instant matter the applicant has failed to produce any revenue documents to indicate or to establish that the property is an agricultural land which is actually being used as agricultural lands at the time when the security interest was created and agricultural activates are being carried on. There is no iota of documents produced by the

¶97

SA No.614/2023

¶98

12 09.07.2025

¶99

applicant to show that the secured asset is an agricultural land is put to use for agricultural purposes and there is agricultural activity going on, the secured asset to avail the benefit/exempted under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶100

5.11 Infact respondent has produced building approval permit dated 28.03.2022 which the applicant has obtained for construction of a building for the President Poothurai Panchayat which clearly evidences that the property mortgaged is not an agricultural land.

¶101

5.12 The Tribunal places reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble

¶102

Supreme Court in the case titled K. SREEDHAR V . M/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS where it is held that the burden is upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on.

¶103

5.13 The applicant has failed to establish that the property mortgaged

¶104

is an agricultural land at the time of creation of mortgagee or even as on today and agricultural activates are being carried on the property.

¶105

5.14 The respondent has initiated measures under the Act for enforcing the security and has established the procedures taken as mandated under the Act by issuing the demand notice 12.12.2022, as the notices returned unclaimed, demand notice is published in the New Indian Express ad Dinamani as required under the Act.

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

5.15 As the borrower and mortgagor did not liquidate the entire liability as demanded in S.13[2], bank has issued possession notice dated 04.03.2023 , sent by RPAD, Affixed on the property and published in two newspapers as required under the Act and established the compliances of the measures .

¶110

5.16 Further 1^st respondent proceeded by taking the valuation of the secured assets on 12.06.2023 and issued the E-Auction sale notice dated 26.07.2023 fixing the reserve price at Rs.144.46 lakhs for the recovery of outstanding amount due at Rs.155.49 lakhs as on 12.06.2023, inclusive of interest up to 31.10.2022 along with further interest.

¶111

5.17 The E-Auction was conducted on 30.08.2023, the 2^nd respondent was declared as successful bidder for a sum of 1,45,46,000/- and the sale certificate was issued on 20.09.2023 which is registered as Document No.6338 of 2023 in favour of the successful auction purchaser the 2^nd respondent herein. After the registration of the Sale Certificate, the applicant has filed the present SA No.614 of 2023 on 10.10.2023

¶112

5.18 It is seen thought applicant challenged the sale held on 30.08.2023 has not raised any contentions or irregularity in the measure taken in putting the property for sale, but restricted the contention that the property is an agricultural land and failed to establish by any document that the property is an agricultural land.

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

15.19 The Tribunal places reliance on Apex Court Judgment in Case : Celir LLP v. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others -Citation : 2024

¶117

Live Law (SC) 991 held as "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."

¶118

5.20 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."

¶119

5.21 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgement in the said case dated 21/09/2023 had reiterated Section 13(8) of the amended Act as under:-

¶120

Para 105(iii)

¶121

“ However, the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002. In effect, the right of redemption available to the borrower under the present statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the date of

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002 and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auction purchaser”

¶126

5.22 The applicant being aware of the measures initiated by the bank under the Act, issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.12.2022 and Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 04.03.2023 had not raised the contention that the secured asset is an agricultural land at any time and had not challenged the S.13[4] notice within 45 days. Thus it is concluded that the concept that secured asset is an agricultural land is an afterthought after waving his right to file an appeal under S.17 after the issuance of statutory notices. Hence the contention that the secured asset is an agricultural land exempted under S.31[i] of the Act is unsustainable.

¶127

5.23 The applicant having lost his right of redemption under S.13[8] has extinguished his right and now has failed to point out any irregularity in the measures and in the sale held.

¶128

5.24 Resultantly present SA fails. Accordingly SA stands dismissed upholding the measures including the sale notice, sale held and the issuance of sale certificate dated 20.09.2023. I nterim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶129

Sd/-

¶130

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

¶131

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

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶137

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	G.O. (Ms). No. 248 dated 15.05.2000	A-1
2.	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds Doc. No. 1261 of 2018 dated 23.03.2018	A-2
3.	UCO/BAZPON/ADV/2021/22/98(a) Letter issued by the Chief Manager UCO Bank Bazar Branch Puducherry dated 01.10.2021	A-3
4.	UCO/BAZPON/ADV/2021/22/105(a) Letter issued by the Chief Manager UCO Bank Bazar Branch Puducherry dated 02.11.2021	A-4
5.	Demand Notice Under section 13(2) dated 12.12.2022	A-5
6.	E-Auction Sale notice published on 28.07.2023 in New Indian Express Vilupuram edition dated 26.07.2023	A-6
7.	Sale certificate executed by the authorised officer in favour of the 2nd respondent registed as Doc.No. 6368 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023	A-7

¶138

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 1st RESPONDNET

¶139

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Sanction Letter dated 20.03.2018	R-1
2.	Sanction of Additional Working Capital dated 20.07.2020	R-2
3.	MOTD executed by the Applicant dated 23.03.2018	R-3
4.	Supplementary MOTD dated 17.08.2020	R-4
5.	Demand Notice issued by the 1^strespondent dated 12.12.2022	R-5
6.	Returned covers	R-6
7.	Newspaper publication of the Demand notice in English Daily The New Indian Express and Tamil Daily Dinamani	R-7
8.	Possession Notice dated 04.03.2023	R-8
9.	Returned Covers & Postal Acknowledgements	R-9
10.	Corrections to the Possession Notice dated 09.03.2023	R-10
11.	Affixture of the Possession Notice dated 04.03.2023	R-11

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

12.	Newspaper publication of the Possession notice in English Daily The New Indian Express and Tamil Daily Dinamani dated 09.03.2023	R-12
13.	Valuation Report dated 12.06.2023	R-13
14.	Sale Notice dated 26.07.2023	R-14
15.	Newspaper publication of the Sale notice in the New Indian Express and Dinamani dated 28.07.2023	R-15
16.	Affixture of the Sale Notice Photograph of the Secured Asset dated 26.07.2023	R-16
17.	Application Submitted Poothurai Panchayat Union Office for Building Approval dated 25.03.2022	R-17
18.	Receipt of payment dated 28.03.2022	R-18
19.	Building Approval Permit dated 28.03.2022	R-19
20.	Sale Confirmation Letter dated 01.09.2023	R-20
21.	Sale certificate Registered in favour of the 2^nd respondent dated 20.09.2023	R-21

¶144

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶145

Schedule of the property as per demand notice and e-Auction sale notice

¶146

Property (Material storage/Industrial Shed) situated at Thindivanam Registration district, Registration sub-district of Vanur, Poothurai Revenue village in Poothurai District, dry land comprised in New Survey No. 257/50.30.3 hectares, Old Survey No. 423-1 with an extent of acre 0.67 cents, in the name of Mr. S. Saminathan.

¶147

Boundaries: To the East of Land belonging to Kent Ansmary

¶148

To the West of Land belonging to Radhakrishnan To the North of Street

¶149

To the South of Land belonging to Perumal Counder

¶150

Schedule of the property as per Sale certificate

¶151

Property (Vacant Land) situated at Tindivanam Registration district, Registration sub – district of Vanur, Poothurai Revenue Village, Dry land comprised in New Survey No. 257/5-0.30.3 hectares, Old Survey No. 4231with an extent of acre 0.67 cents, in the name of Mr. S. Saminathan.

SA No.614/2023

09.07.2025

Boundaries: To the East of Land belonging to Kent Ansmary

¶156

To the West of Land belonging to Radhakrishnan To the North of Path To the South of Land belonging to Perumal Counder

¶157

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

Saminathan v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saminathan v. Uco 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

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