Dismissed

Mms Iron Corporation and others v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT11 Apr 2025SA/680/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging a third auction sale notice. The Tribunal held that the bank complied with SARFAESI procedural formalities, including demand and possession notices and newspaper publications, and that the auction failed due to want of bidders, rendering the application infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Mms Iron Corporation and others versus City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 680 of 2023

¶9

M/s.M.M.S. Iron Corporation,

¶10

Mr.P.Praveen,

¶11

Mr.E.Prasad,

¶12

Mr.C.Narayanan,

¶13

Mrs.Radhika Kumaran ….Applicant

¶14

-Vs-

¶15

City Union Bank Limited, Represented by its Authorised Officer, No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam-612 001 ….Respondent

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G.Desingu Counsel for Respondent : M/s.A.Karthikeyan

¶18

ORDER ON SA 680 /2023

¶19

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

¶20

The applicant has challenged the auction sale notice dated 07.12.2023 fixing the sale on 29.12.2021 and the outstanding amount is Rs.14,81,39,775/-

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

The first applicant M/s M.M.S. Iron Corporation represented by the second applicant: M/s CLN Cinemas, is engaged in the business of buying and selling iron and steel materials and cinematography distribution business. The applicants No. 3, 4 & 5 are guarantors and have executed security documents and mortgage in favor of the bank towards the credit facility; the 4^th applicant is also guarantor and has Mortgaged the house property situated at C-76, 14^th Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai which is mentioned in the item No.4, property and the 5^th applicant had created the Mortgage of house property situated at Plot.No.24, Gurusamy Nagar I Main Road, Gowrivakkam, Chennai-601302

¶25

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶26

3.1 It is the case of the applicants that they were directed to sign in blank papers at the time of availing the loan and suddenly bank abruptly blocked the operation of all their Accounts vide email dated 29.03.2021 due to the default in repayments of the Loan. The accounts of the Applicant were classified as NPA as on 30/09/2020 and demand notice was issued on 23/04/2021 under the Section 13(2). Further the bank has also filed O.A.557 of 2021, on the file of DRT, Madurai. The term loan of M/s. CLN Cinemas was closed by negotiated settlement on 10/07/2021, the bank has also closed the loan account.

¶27

3.2 The present S.A. is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 17/12/2023 fixing the Auction Sale on 29/12/2/2023. It is alleging that the loan availed by M/s. CLN Cinemas is settled for a sum of Rs.330 Lakhs

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

for the release of the guarantors property; the bank has also released the property of Mrs.Kasthuri without any consent, concurrence and knowledge of the principal debtor which is highly unlawful and bank has filed O.A.557 of 2021 before DRT, Madurai wherein the guarantor Mrs.Kasthuri was not included as one of the defendant, which has been violation of the contract.

¶32

3.3 The term loan of M/s. CLN Cinemas was closed by negotiated settlement on 10.07.2021 and bank has made claim of closed amount with interest which was not justifiable in the eyes of law. The respondent bank barred from continuing the business and the business become stand still, rendering the employees jobless who are solely dependent on the applicant business. However, applicant where forced to pay the salaries to meet other establishments costs.

¶33

3.4 The Respondent bank have claimed Rs.14 crores and they have not bifurcated short Term loan No.512120020015111 availed by M/s. CLN cinemas which was settled. However, the bank unilaterally merged M/s. CLN cinemas short term loan with M/s. M.M.S. Iron Corporation loan without consent of the borrower/ mortgagor/ guarantor/ principal debtor, thus the clubbing of account is untenable and bank has debited processing charges of Rs.16,668/- on 26.09.2019 of M/s. M.M.S. Iron Corporation without any reason.

¶34

3.5 The applicant met the General Manager Mr. Mahadevan and Regional Manager Mr. Muthukumar and discussed about settling the dues

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

and came to the conclusion to remit 8% daily cash sales into the account of the bank would be sufficient and the applicant started to remit daily 8% daily cash sales into the loan account from 08.10.2020 till 05.09.2021

¶39

3.6 The OLCC limit of Rs.350 lakhs sanctioned was enhanced to be Rs.550 lakhs on 26.09.2019 by transferring Rs.200 lakhs from M/s. CLN Cinemas Account without informing the principal borrower and the applicant had several meetings with respondent bank and expressed the difficulties to make the interest obligation and sought for waiver for payment with interest as there was complete lockdown due to pandemic situation.

¶40

3.7 As the respondent bank has released the applicant‟s property without the consent of the other guarantors/principal debtors, their liabilities also is discharged, the bank has transferred a portion of the CLN Cinemas outstanding loan amount in the present outstanding of M/s. MMS Iron Corporation, however the respondent bank claims in the O.A 557/2021 that the account was not classified as NPA, the Term Loan of M/s. CLN Cinemas was closed, hence the bank‟s claim is totally not justifiable

¶41

3.8 The applicant vide letter dated 28/08/2020 requested to sanction COVID-19 collateral free loan to restructure the account, and in spite of reminders the bank is completely silent and did not consider their request. The reminders sent by the applicant is refused, stating that the applicant account is not standard, hence the bank did not consider for a

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

sanction and restructure of account, further bank have not taken steps to revise the account which is mandatory

¶46

3.9 The Respondent bank was repeatedly conveying to avail Covid-19 collateral free loan on condition that the account should be standard as on 29.02.2020, however the bank failed to grand the Covid-19 free laon.

¶47

3.10 The bank has not taken steps to either rehabilitate or re-phase the account which is a mandatory condition before initiation of legal action under the SARFAESI Act, and without providing rehabilitation bank did not monitor the account as per the RBI guidelines and policies of Reserve Bank of India.

¶48

3.11 The bank has issued Possession Notice on 01/02/2022 as if they have not taken symbolic possession of the secured property, subsequently respondent bank had issued Sale Notice on 27/07/2022. The Sale Notice was challenged in S.A.No.219/2022 before the DRT, Madurai contending that the loan account was not declared as NPA

¶49

3.12 The S.A. No.219/2022 is pending before DRT, Madurai where sale notice was challenged and it is pending for the adjudication, however the bank had issued a sale notice dated 07/12/2023 fixing the sale dated 29/12/2023, in respect of the secured properties during the pending adjudication of S.A.No. 219/2022.

¶50

3.13 It is further submitted that the bank has not affixed the sale notice on the property and not considered the remittance of 8% cash sale made by the applicant and have invoked the SARFAESI Act arbitrarily.

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

Further the bank has failed to disclose the known encumbrances when there is a registered lease as per the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is existing in the secured property which is in violation of Rule 8(7) (a) of SIE Rules. Hence sale notice dated 07/12/2023 is improper, illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶55

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶56

4.1 The Respondent Bank has filed a detailed counter along with the supporting documents inter alia contending that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and not disclosed the true facts and applicants surpassed crucial facts of various limits enjoyed by them hence the Applicant claim is liable to be dismissed

¶57

4.2 The respondent bank states that the availing of the credit facilities by 1^st Applicant from the Respondent Bank to the extent of Rs.5.35 Crores is not disputed. Admittedly, there is no dispute to the existence of security interest in respect of the SA Item No.1 property of the 5^th Applicant and the Item No.2 property of the 4^th Applicant, the bank denies the allegations made in Para No.V(3) as incorrect.

¶58

4.3 The applicant had availed the below mentioned credit facilities and started to commit defaults in the repayments and the said Accounts were highly irregular in repayments and the account was classified as NPA on 30/09/2020.

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

S.No.	Nature of the Credit Facility with Account Number	Amount sanctioned (Rs.)	Date when availed	Sanctioned ROI per annum in %
1)	CUB OSL Special – BR 501812080051228	3,00,00,000.00	30/03/2019	13.75%
2)	OLCC 512020010012966	3,50,00,000.00	31/05/2017	12.25%

¶63

4.4 The respondent bank as a secured creditor issued a Demand Notice dated 23/04/2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rule 3(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to the applicants, demanding to clear the outstanding amount due within the period of 60 days. The demand notice was served duly to the first applicant M/s.CLN Cinemas and Mrs.Kasthuri and the demand notices returned unserved with postal remarks as “unclaimed” in respect of the 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th applicants; further the notice sent to 5^th applicant returned as “No such Person” and “Left”. As the notices came unserved to the bank, the bank has published the demand notice dated 23/04/2021, in the leading English daily Newspaper “The New Indian Express” Chennai Edition on 19/09/2021 and in the leading Tamil Daily Newspaper “Dinamani” Chennai Edition on 19/09/2021.

¶64

4.5 As there was no representation or objection to the Demand notice by the applicant and by its Mortgagor, the bank has proceeded further under the measure. However Mrs.Kasthuri come forwards to discharge

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

her outstanding liabilities which is due on M/s. CLN Cinemas and after the repayment the bank has released her property. The other properties which are commonly secured for the dues of the M/s. CLN Cinemas are liable to be complied by the first applicant and are to discharge their liability.

¶69

4.6 The bank has issued the possession notice dated 01/02/2022 which is duly served and deemed as served on applicants and others. The possession notice is affixed on the conspicuous part of the property and also published in Newspaper “The New Indian Express” Chennai Edition on 04/02/2022 and in the Newspaper “Dinamani” Chennai Edition on 04/02/2022 as prescribed under Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶70

4.7 The applicants cannot be allowed to demand the release of independent Account of M/s. CLN Cinemas and the property of Mrs.Kasthuri and the allegations are denied. The contention that the bank have not restructured the loan account during the pandemic of Covid-19 is also without any demur and not allowed in the doctrine of acquiescence. The respondent bank has allowed the opportunity of the Covid-19 relief to all the borrowers.

¶71

4.8 As the applicant, borrower and guarantor has not responded, the bank has issued sale notice on 18/03/2022 which did not fructified for want of bidders and the same was also not challenged by the applicant

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

4.9 The bank issued sale notice on 22/07/2022, 2^nd auction sale notice which is also duly received by the applicant and the same also did not fructified for want of bidders. The applicant had challenged the measures in S.A.No.219/2022 before the Hon‟ble DRT, Madurai where no stay is granted.

¶76

4.10 The applicant had a common question before both the court of the concurrent jurisdiction, subsequent to the S.A.219/2022 the above SA is not maintainable. The bank has obtained an Order dated 30/06/2022 in C.M.P.No.5005/2022, U/S.14 before the learned CJM, Chengalpet for taking physical possession, further bank on 12/04/2023 has obtained an Order in Crl.M.P.No.27556/2022, U/S.14 of SARFAESI Act 2002, to take physical possession of property item No.2 of the 4^th applicant

¶77

4.11 The bank had issued 3^rd Auction Sale Notice on 07/12/2023 and the applicant had challenged the same in S.A.No.219/2022, before the DRT, Madurai and the above SA is filed before that Hon‟ble Tribunal, is nothing but sheer abuse of provisions of law. The present sale notice dated 07/12/2023 has also not fructified due to want of bidders, resulted the S.A. to become infructuous.

¶78

4.12 The Bank has issued sale notice and has affixed the sale notice

¶79

on the conspicuous parts of the property, further the sale notice is also published in the 2 News Papers and hence all the allegations fails as the respondent bank has followed in due compliance of the measures and prays for dismissal of the S.A with cost.

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

Heard the respective counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records of the case.

¶84

5.1 Admittedly the challenge in the present SA is to set aside the sale notice dated 07.12.2023 which has not fructified for want of bidders as mentioned in the para 12, page 5 of the bank counter.

¶85

5.2 Infact, there is no dispute about availing of the credit facilities by M/s. MMS Iron Corporation, creation of mortgages as security by applicants No. 2 to 5 who are mortgagors towards the credit facilities availed. Further the applicant as borrower admits the default in the payments resulting in classifying the account as a NPA.

¶86

5.3 The contentions of the applicant that the, account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 30.09.2020 and demand notice was issued on 23.04.2021 under section 13(2) and the bank has also filed O.A. 557 of 2021, on the file of DRT, Madurai is an admitted fact. Further the applicants also admits the closure of the Term loan by M/s. CLN Cinemas by a negotiated settlement on 10.07.2021 and the account under Term loan of M/s. CLN Cinemas is closed. And the bank also closed M/s. CLN Cinemas for a sum of Rs.330 lakhs and have released guarantor‟s property. The contentions of the applicant that the property of Mrs. Kasthuri was released without any consent, concern, concurrence and knowledge of the principal debtor cannot be sustained, as the guarantor have come forward and closed the loan account and have redeemed the property which is sustainable under law.

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

5.4 Further the applicant is fully aware, the bank has filed O.A. 557 of 2021 and also aware of the actions taken by the bank. The same come to be adjudicated in the O.A. 557 of 2021 before the DRT Madurai. As the present S.A is filed challenging the sale notice dated 07.12.2023, the Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the Act to adjudicate where the bank has followed all the measures as required under Acts and Rules made their under.

¶91

5.5 The further allegations that the applicants were directed to sign on blank papers would not come to rescue of the applicant, not a person would sign on blank paper more so, applicant been in the business. Further it is also contended that the bank has not failed to disclose the known encumbrances when there is a registered lease as per the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, applicant has not filed any documents in support of allegations and averments, in support of the documents would have not come to the aid of the applicants.

¶92

5.6 As the applicants did not pay the repayments regularly, account was classified as NPA; after the classification, the bank had issued demand notice dated 23/04/2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which is duly served on the applicant M/s. MMS Iron Corporation and the demand notices sent to other applicant came un served, hence the bank has published the demand notice on two News Papers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another in Tamil “Dhinamani”

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

5.7 As the Applicants, Borrower, Guarantor, Mortgagors did not repay the liability within 60 days as required under section 13(2), the bank has proceeded further and issued the Section 13(4) possession Notice on 01/02/2022. The acknowledgement cards and return covers are produced along with the counter and typed set at Page No. 27 to 34.

¶97

5.8 As per the procedure the bank has published the possession notice in the Two News Paper copies are produced on page No. 35 and 36. Thus, the bank has established compliance of the procedural measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. As the applicants did not liquidated the entire liability, the bank has proceeded further and issued sale notice dated 18.03.2022 which did not materialized. Hence the bank has issued the second sale notice dated 22.07.2022 which also did not fructified for want of bidders, account was not regular in repayments, bank had further moved with procedure on the item No.1 and 2 of the property to auction due to violation of the repayment take placed, produced on page No. 26

¶98

5.9 It is also a matter of record that the respondent bank has obtained the Section 14 Order in C.M.P.No.5005/2002, U/S.14 Of SARFAESI Act and in Crl.M.P.No.27556/2022, U/S.14 of SARFAESI Act for Item No.1 and 2 of the properties, the orders are produced in page No.45, applicant heard page No.73 to 85 of the debt stay of the objections.

¶99

5.10 The bank has issued the sale notice dated 07/12/2023 which did not fructified for want of bidders, thus rendering present S.A. as infructuous

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

5.11 It is evident that the applicant has availed the credit facility, mortgaged the property as a security towards credit facility which was availed by the applicants. Due to the default in repayments the account has been classified as the NPA as per the RBI Guidelines and bank as secured creditor has initiated the measures under the Act and issued S.13[2] issued demand notice dated 23/04/2021 and the possession notice dated 01/02/2022 by following the procedures as mandated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶104

5.12 In spite of services of the notices under the Act, the applicants did not liquidated the liability as demanded, hence the bank has approached the Hon‟ble CJM under S.14 of the Act and has obtained an Order to take physical possession of the Property.

¶105

5.13 In furtherance to the measure the respondent has issued sale notices scheduling the property for auction however the sale notices dated 07.12.2023 did not fructify for want of bidders. The bank has obtained valuation from their approved valuer for the item No.1 and produced the valuation report at pages 37 to 50 of the counter. The present SA is filed challenging the sale notice dated 07.12.2023 fixing the sale on 29.12.2023 which also did not materialize for want of bidders.

¶106

5.14 The prayer as sought for in the SA is to set aside the sale notice dated-07.12.2023 which has becomes infructuous for want of bidders. The averment/challenge of S.13[4] possession notice dated 01.2.2022 and S.14 Order dated 30.06.2022 in CMP No.5005/2022 and Order

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

12.04.2023 in CRl.M P 27556/2022 is not within the period of 45 days in preferring an application under S.17 of the Act as present SA is filed on 27.12.2023.

¶111

5.15 The measures taken by the respondent under the Act is in due compliance of the procedures required under the Act which is duly supported by the documents. On the other hand, the applicant has failed to point out any illegalities in the measures taken by the respondent bank under the Act ad Rules made under.

¶112

For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal comes to inevitable conclusion that the respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act in due compliance of the procedures without any irregularity resulting in the dismissal of the SA.

¶113

Resultantly SA stands dismissed. Interim order granted if any, stands vacated. Pending IAs if any, are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to costs.

¶114

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

¶115

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 11^th day of April, 2025)

¶116

ANNEXURES

¶117

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	Demand Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 23/04/21	A-1
2.	Possession Notice u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act 01/02/22	A-2
3.	Release Deed of Deposit of Title Deed in Doc.3063/2020 15/10/2020	A-3
4.	Letter to Mrs. Kasthuri issued by the respondent 18/06/2021	A-4
5.	Discharge Receipt in Doc.No.2565/2021 08/07/2021	A-5
6.	Encumbrance Certificate 25/05/2023	A-6
7.	Registered Lease Deed in Doc.1351/2021	A-7
8.	Lease Agreement 12/02/2021	A-8
9.	Registered Lease Agreement in Doc.No.904/2022 25/01/2022	A-9
10.	Encumbrance Certificate 25/12/2023	A-10
11.	Re-Tender cum auction sale notice 07/12/2023	A-11

¶122

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶123

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	Demand Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 of Responded Bank issued to the Applicants and others 23/04/2021	R-1
2.	Acknowledgement Cards/returned covers of Demand Notice dated 23/04/2021	R-2
3.	Publication of the Content of the Demand Notice dated 23/04/2021, in the English Daily Newspaper “The New Indian Express” Chennai Edition. 19/09/2021	R-3
4.	Publication of the Content of the Demand Notice dated 23/04/2021, in the Tamil Daily Newspaper “Dinamani”Chennai Edition. 19/09/2021	R-4
5.	Possession Notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 of Respondent Bank issued to the Applicants. 01/02/2022	R-5
6.	Acknowledgement Cards and Return Cover of the Possession Notice dated 01/02/2022.	R-6
7.	Publication of Possession Notice dated 01/02/2022 in the English Daily Newspaper “The New Indian Express” Chennai Edition 04/02/2022	R-7
8.	Publication of Possession Notice dated	R-8

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

	01/02/2022 in the Tamil Daily Newspaper “Dinamani”, Chennai Edition.04/02/2022
9.	Valuation Report of the Secured Asset of the Respondent [ SA schedule Item No.1 Property] 22/06/2021	R-9
10.	Valuation Report of the Secured Asset of the Respondent [SA Schedule Item No.1 Property] 23/06/2021	R-10
11.	Tender cum Auction Sale Notice of Respondent Bank issued to the Applicants [1^stAuction Sale Notice] 18/03/2022	R-11
12.	Re-Tender cum Auction Sale Notice of Respondent Bank issued to the Applicants [2^nd Auction Sale Notice] 22/07/2022	R-12
13.	E-copy of the order made in C.M.P.No.5005/2022, by the Learned CJM, Chengalpet. [SA Schedule Property No.2 of the 5^thApplicant] 30/06/2022	R-13
14.	E-copy of the Order made in Crl.M.P.No.27556/2022, u/s.14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, by the Learned CMM, Chennai. [SA Schedule Property No.2 of the 4^thApplicant] 12/04/2023	R-14
15.	Impugned Re-Tender cum Auction Sale Notice of Respondent Bank issued to the Applicants [3^rd Auction Sale Notice] 07/12/2023	R-15
16.	Publication of impugned Re-Tender cum Auction Sale Notice dated 07/12/2023 in the English Daily Newspaper “Deccan Chronicle” Chennai Edition.08/12/2023	R-16
17.	Publication of impugned Re-Tender cum Auction Sale Notice dated 07/12/2023 in the Tamil Daily Newspaper“Dinakaran”Chennai Edition.	R-17
18.	Statement of Account [CUB OSL Special-BR] for the period from 01/03/2019 to 27/12/2023.	R-18
19.	Statement of Account [OLCC] for the period from 01/01/2020 to 27/12/2023.
	SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶128

PROPERTY 1:

¶129

(PROPERTY OWNED BY MRS. RADHIKA KUMARAN, 5^TH APPLICANT)

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

The site together with superstructure now existing and to be constructed thereon at the following properties.

¶134

All that piece and parcel of land bearing Plot. No.24, Gurusamy Nagar, First Main road, Gowrivakkam, Chennai – 601 302 in Gowrivakkam Village, Tamabaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in Survey No, 75/2A together with building measuring an extent of 1500 sq.ft approximately and bounded on the

¶135

North by survey No.76/2A1 bearing Plot No.2

¶136

South by Plot No.23

¶137

East by survey no. 76/2A/2

¶138

West by 30.3 feet Road

¶139

Admeasuring

¶140

East to West on Northern Side 91 feet

¶141

East to West on the Southern side 90 feet

¶142

North to South on the eastern side 48.6 feet

¶143

North to South on Western side 58 feet

¶144

In all measuring to an extent of 4792 sqft or 445.787 sq.mtr with building measuring to 1500 sq.ft approximately and the property is situated within the sub-registration district of Tambaram and registration district of Chennai south building approvals and planning permit No 203/2001 and 194/2001

¶145

PROPERTY 2:

¶146

(PROPERTY OWNED BY MR.C.NARAYANAN, 4^TH APPLICANT)

¶147

The site together with superstructure now existing and to be constructed thereon at the following properties.

SA No.680/2023 (C)

11.04.2025

The property is a house, Ground and premises, old No. C-76, New No.21, 14^th Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082 comprised in T.S.No.201, Old Survey No.382m then 382/1, Block No. 32 of Pervallur Village the boundaries of the house site are as follows

¶152

North by Plot No. C-77 (T.S.No.200)

¶153

South by Plot No. C-75 (T.S.No.202)

East by 40 feet road

West by E-85

Admeasuring

East to West on Northern Side 60 feet

¶158

East to West on the southern side 60 feet

¶159

North to South on the eastern side 40 feet

¶160

North to south on the western side 40 feet

¶161

Total extent of 2400 sqft of land with building measuring 1115sqft in the ground floor and 1115sqft in the First Floor within the Sub-Registration district of Sembiam and Registration District of Sembiam and Registration District of Chennai North.

¶162

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

Mms Iron Corporation and others v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mms Iron Corporation and others v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/s Colorhome Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s. Aks Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus M s Himaja Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Thiru Murugan Modern Rice Mill

Bank of India versus Amman Food Products

Bank of India versus Amman Food Products