Allowed

C Vijayakumari v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Erstwhile Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited)

DRT7 Oct 2025SA/824/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed applicant’s securitization application, setting aside sale of secured asset and sale certificate issued to 2nd defendant. Court held sale conducted without prior notice extending bidding date violated SARFAESI rules prohibiting retrospective extension.

What did the court decide?

Sale of secured asset to 2nd defendant and sale/registration certificates set aside; 2nd defendant directed to handover asset; 1st defendant directed to refund purchase money with 6% p.a. interest.

C Vijayakumari versus Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 07^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

S.A No. 824 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

C.Vijayakumari,

¶8

W/o. C.K.Unni,

¶9

Chirackal House,

¶10

Vilayur P.O.,

¶11

Palakkad -679309

¶12

--- Applicant

¶13

And

¶14

JMFinancial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.,

¶15

Regd.Office, 7^th Floor, Cnergy Appasheb Marathe marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400025 Represented by its by its

¶16

Authorised Officer.

¶17

Shiju V.S., C/o. Saidy Muhammed, Vedipurackal House, X/480/F, Panchayat Road, Kuzhuvelippady, Aluva East, Ernakulam – 683561.

¶18

--- Defendants

¶19

This Securitization Application coming on 04.06.2025, 18.06.2025, 27.06.2025, 02.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Sadchith P.Kurup, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Madhu Radhakrishnan Advocate appearing for D1 and Ms. Menisha representing the counsel appearing for D2 and upon

¶20

SA No.824 of 2024

¶21

hearing the arguments of both sides’ counsels and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Securitisation Application was filed on 08.10.2024 seeking to declare that the entire measures adopted by the 1^st defendant for sale of the applicant’s property as defective, illegal, null and void and to quash Annexures A29 and A30 sale Certificates; to declare that the defendants 1 and 2 are not entitled to take physical possession of the secured asset; to direct the defendants to pay the entire costs of this proceeding and compensation amount of Rs.1 Crore to the applicant.

¶24

One Deepa Panels Private Ltd., obtain various credit facilities from the State Bank of India. The applicant for securing the repayment of the credit facilities, mortgaged her property admeasuring an extent of 4.80 Acres situated in Re.Sy. Nos. 46/3, 46/2 and 46/4 at Ottapalam Taluk, Vilayur Village, Palakkad District. Since the aforesaid company defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, its loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 30.06.2011. The assignor bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Later on, the debt was assigned to the 1^st defendant company under the registered assignment agreement deed. Thereafter, Annexure A11 possession notice and Annexure A13 possession notice dated 13.11.2020 were issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured assets. Thereafter, possession of the secured assets was taken by then authorised officer on 13.11.2020.

¶25

Subsequently, the 1^st defendant issued sale notice dated 13.09.2022 Annexure B1 sale was not fructified. Hence, another sale notice dated 19.06.2023 Annexure B2 was issued, for sale of the secured assets. Since no bid was received even on the last date of submission of bid, a bid was received on 15.07.2023 by the 2^nd defendant on payment of EMD amount of Rs.2.530 lakhs. Hence, the 1st defendant issued corrigendum notice dated 17.07.2023 Annexure B5 deferring the sale which was to be held on 18.07.2023. The revised date of auction was fixed on 26.07.2023, extending the submission of the bid up to 24.07.2023. The 2^nd defendant was declared as the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.240 lakhs. Sale was confirmed in his favour and sale certificate dated 20.09.2023 was

¶26

Page 2 of 14

¶27

SA No.824 of 2024

¶28

issued to him and the physical possession of the secured assets was also handed over to him.

¶29

The applicant having aggrieved against the aforesaid measures has filed this SA seeking for the reliefs as stated supra.

¶30

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the secured asset was sold by the 1^st defendant in collusion with the 2^nd defendant and that sale was conducted in total disregard of the statutory provisions and also without issuance of notice to the applicant. The sale of the property was scheduled on 18.07.2023. The last date for submission of bid was fixed as 14.07.2023 till 5 p.m., The 2^nd defendant did not submit any bid till the aforesaid date and time. But he submitted a bid on 15.07.2023 making a specific request to extend the auction. This is a clear case of fraud and collision between the bidder and the authorised officer of the 1^st defendant.

¶31

The counsel for the applicant submitted further that the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder does not provide for adjournment of sale, once sale does not take place, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese V. Amritha Kumar [2014 (2) KLT 61]. The revised notice of sale was not personally served to the applicant in terms of Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules sale of the property and failure to issue notice to the borrower is a breach of mandatory condition as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasu P.Shetty V. Hotel Vandana Palace and Ors .[2014 (5) SCC 660] and Rajiv Subramanian and Anr. V. Pandyas and Ors . [2014 (5) SCC 651] and Canara bank V. M.Amarender Reddy and Anr .[2017 (4) SCC 735]. Therefore, since the sale conducted by the 1^st defendant on 26.07.2023 is in violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder, the sale is liable to be set aside. There cannot be any retrospective extension of time for entertaining the bid as held by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Swadesh Renjan Paul V. State of Assam [2022 KHC 2483].

¶32

The counsel appearing for the 1^st defendant submitted that OA No. 161/2013 was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai-II by the 1^st defendant against the applicant and the other borrowers and that OA was decreed in favour of the 1^st defendant. Recovery certificate was issued for an amount of Rs.36.63 Crores as on

¶33

Page 3 of 14

¶34

SA No.824 of 2024

¶35

08.12.2025 along with future interest. Till now other than 4.80 Acres which was sold, no other property has been sold and no recovery has been made. The present dues is more than Rs.60 Crores.

¶36

The counsel appearing for the 1^st defendant submitted further the 1^st defendant served notice dated 13.09.2022 for sale of the secured assets on 02.11.2022 to all the borrowers and the guarantors including the applicant. The secured assets was not redeemed by the applicant. Hence, the right to redeem the property stood extinguished as early as on 13.09.2022, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP V. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt.Ltd. and Ors .[Manu/SC/1042/2023].

¶37

The counsel appearing for the 1st defendant submitted further that the applicant did not challenge the 2^nd sale notice dated 19.06.2023 within the period of limitation. Even though the last date of submission of bid was fixed on 14.07.2023, no bid was received. On the next day, i.e., 15.07.2023, a bid was received from the 2nd defendant. He paid EMD amount of Rs. 23.50 lakhs. The 1^st defendant issued corrigendum notice dated 17.07.2023 Annexure B5 prior to the original date of auction deferring the sale which was to be held on 18.07.2023. The revised date of auction was fixed on 26.07.2023 extending the submission of bid up to 24.07.2023 corrigendum notice was published in two leading news papers Annexure B6. It was done with an objective of providing a fair opportunity to the public at large including any other intending bidders to participate in the auction process.

¶38

It is submitted further by the counsel appearing for the 1^st defendant that the 2^nd defendant who bidded for Rs.240 lakhs was declared as the highest bidder and that no other bidders participated. The sale was confirmed in favour of the 2^nd defendant and Annexure A29 sale certificate was issued to him and the sale certificate was registered on 20.09.2023 and physical possession of the secured asset was handed over to him. Neither Rule 8 nor Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 does prohibit issuing the corrigendum before the date of sale for extending the time to receive tender before the date of sale. Hence, issuance of fresh sale notice was not required, as sale date was not over. No details has been provided by the applicant in the S.A to prove fraud or collision between

¶39

Page 4 of 14

¶40

SA No.824 of 2024

¶41

the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant. Collusion and fraud were not pleaded by the applicant in W.P.(c) No.33109/2023 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Since fraud or collusion is not proved by the applicant, the sale of the secured asset is not liable to be set aside as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP V. Sumathi Prasad Bafna and Ors [Manu.SC/1343/2024]. Therefore, the SA may be dismissed with compensatory costs to the 1^st defendant.

¶42

The counsel appearing for the 2^nd defendant submitted that the 1^st defendant conducted the public auction after duly complying with the procedures as prescribed by law. There is no merit in the allegation with regard to the alleged non-issuance of the sale notice and of the 1^st defendant joining hands with the 2^nd defendant to defeat the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder. Secured asset is not an agricultural land. No agricultural activity was being carried on in the secured asset. Though the 2^nd defendant has been put in physical possession of the secured asset, he is unable to utilise the property. Even assuming for argument’s sake, without admitting that auction of the property was held without due notice, and sale is liable to be set aside, the 2^nd defendant being a bonafide purchaser is entitled to be suitably compensated as per the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2019 (KER) 104. The S.A may be dismissed with costs to the 2^nd defendant.

¶43

Annexure-A22 copy of the photograph produced by the applicant shows the existence of few coconut trees. No supporting documents has been produced along with Annexure-A22 photograph in order to show that this photograph is pertaining to the secured asset. Be that it may so, Annexure-A22 photograph cannot be considered as a reliable document to prove the contention of the applicant that agricultural activities were being carried on in the property admeasuring 4.80 Acres of land, which is the secured asset on the date of creation of security interest over the same which is the secured asset. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the above property is the agricultural property is liable to be rejected.

¶44

The applicant has not pleaded in the SA that she was entitled to get the benefit of redemption of her property as per the provisions of Sec.13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. There is also no such contention in the written argument note submitted by the counsel for

¶45

Page 5 of 14

¶46

SA No.824 of 2024

¶47

the applicant. Therefore, the contention of the 1^st defendant that the right of the applicant to redeem the property stood existinguished as early as on 13.09.2022 when the sale notice was published does not require to be considered.

¶48

Annexure-B1 sale notice dated 30.09.2022 is the first sale notice issued to bring the secured assets for sale on 02.11.2022. It is the contention of the applicant that the above sale notice was not served to her. But the rival contention of the 1^st defendant in its written statement is that Annexure-B1 sale notice was served to all the borrowers and guarantors including the applicant. No material has been produced before this Tribunal in order to prove the above averment. Be that it may so, the sale was not fructified pursuant to Annexure-B1 sale notice.

¶49

The applicant has averred in the SA that sale notice was not served to her residential address in Palakkad and that she came to know of the sale of her property only on receipt of the mail, AnnexureA16 from the 1^st defendant on 06.09.2023 and that she was not residing in Chennai. But the contention of the 1^st defendant is that sale notice was sent to Chennai address where she was residing and that the demand notice issued by the assigner bank was served on the applicant at her Chennai address and that Annexure-B2 sale notice which sent to the residential address of her husband and son, Palakkad was returned un-served and that therefore, there is no bonafide in the contention of the applicant with regard to non-receipt of the sale notice. It is also contended by the 1^st defendant that she is in possession of the secured asset, she ought to have been aware of affixture of the sale notice on the secured asset.

¶50

Annexure-B2 sale notice dated 19.06.2023 (copy of the sale notice downloaded by the applicant from the website of the 1^st defendant is produced as Annexure-A19) was issued scheduling the sale of the secured assets on 18.07.2023. The 1^st defendant has produced Annexure-B3 copies of paper publications and Annexure-B4 copy of photograph in order to show that Annexure-B2 sale notice was published in The Hindu and in the Mathrubhoomi, Palakkad edition dated 19.06.2023 and in The New Indian Express and in the Dinamani, Chennai and Coimbatore editions dated 19.06.2023 and that it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset.

¶51

Page 6 of 14

¶52

SA No.824 of 2024

¶53

The 1^st defendant issued Annexure-B5 corrigendum notice dated 17.07.2023 deferring the sale which had to be held on 18.07.2023. As per Annexure-B5 the revised date of sale was fixed on 26.07.2023, extending the submission of the bid upto 24.07.2023. In Annexure-B5, it is mentioned that, the Authorized Officer in exercise of his powers u/s 13 (12) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has deferred the e-auction in the account of M/s. Deepa Panels Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) and that the revised date of submission of bid is on 24.07.2023 till 5.00 pm and date and time of e-auction is on 26.07.2023 between 11.00 am to 12.00 noon. The above said provisions of the Act though empowers to exercise the right of a secured creditor by one or more of his Officers authorized in his behalf in such manner as may be prescribed, does not authorize the Authorized Officer to defer the date of sale to a later date by extending the time for bidding.

¶54

According to the applicant, no bid was received on 14.07.2023 which was the last date of submission of the bid and a bid was received from the 2^nd defendant who paid EMD amount of Rs.23.50 Lakhs and corrigendum notice dated 17.07.2023 Annexure-B5 was issued prior to the original date of auction deferring the sale which was to be held on 18.07.2023. It cannot be disputed that AnnexureB5 notice was published in two leading newspapers as evidenced from the perusal of Annexure-B6 copies of paper publications. It is the contention of the 1^st defendant that it was done with an objective of providing a fair opportunity to the public at large including any other intending bidder to participate in the auction.

¶55

But what has to be considered is as to whether the 1^st defendant, who is the Authorized Officer, was empowered to defer the date of sale extending the date of bidding without the prior consent of the applicant. It is the contention of the 1^st defendant that neither Rule 8 nor Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 does not prohibit issuing the corrigendum before the date of sale for extending the time to receive the tender before the date of sale. But the issue which arises for consideration is, as to whether the aforesaid Rule of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 empowers the Authorized Officer to alter or extend the date of sale which has already been fixed in the sale notice. It is pertinent to state that the applicant was not put on notice with regard to extending the date of bidding and sale of the secured asset on 26.7.2023.

¶56

Page 7 of 14

¶57

SA No.824 of 2024

¶58

In Mathew Varghese V. Amritha Kumar [2014 (2) KLT 61] relied on by the counsel for the applicant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, once sale does not take place pursuant to a notice under Rule 8 & 9 r/w Sec.13 (8) it is imperative that, for effecting the sale, the procedure prescribed will have to be followed afresh. As per the dictum laid down in the above case, it is evident that neither Rule 8 (6) nor Rule 9 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, does not provide for adjournment of sale, if sale does not take place on the stipulated date.

¶59

In Swadesh Ranjan Paul and Jahar Paul v. State of Assam and Others (2022 KHC OnLine 2483) cited by the counsel for the applicant, the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati has held as follows:“ Tender process—Petitioner challenging tender process on ground that Corrigendum issued to extend time with intent to favour respondent who submitted her bid immediately—Authority stipulated terms in NIT that if any amendment of bid is required, same should be done before deadline for submission of bid— Admittedly there was violation of said stipulation as Corrigendum was published after deadline for submission of bid was over – There is no scope for directing the respondent No.3 for consideration of the bids of the petitioner as he also failed to fulfil the requisite criteria while submitting the hard copy of the technical bid—Retender ordered”.

¶60

In the above case, the bid submission end date was notified as 25.2.2020 at 02.00 p.m. which is the deadline of the submission of the bids. Though clause 20(II) of the ITB authorises the employer, the Chief Engineer, WRD to extend the deadline of the submission of the bids by issuing amendment, the employer is prohibited to cause such amendment as per clause 10(1) of the ITB, beyond the period stipulated as deadline for submission of the bids.

¶61

In the present case on hand, as already observed by this Tribunal, the last date for bidding is 14.7.2023. On the next day i.e.to say 15.7.2023 the 2^nd defendant offered the bid paying EMD amount of Rs.23.50 lakhs. The 1^st defendant issued Annexure B5 Corrigendum notice on 17.7.2023 just one day prior to the original date of auction, deferring the sale which was to be held on 18.7.2023. What discernible from the above dictum laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati referred to in the judgment supra is that, there is no

¶62

Page 8 of 14

¶63

SA No.824 of 2024

¶64

scope for extending the bidding date after the deadline for submission of the bid was over. The 1^st defendant ought to have issued fresh sale notice again for sale of the secured asset instead of proceeding further for the sale of the secured asset with issuance of Annexure B5 Corrigendum notice.

¶65

It is pertinent to mention that if more than one bidder excluding the 2^nd defendant herein had taken part in the auction which was to be held on 26.7.2023, this Tribunal will be constrained to reject the contention of the applicant that there was a collusion between the authorised officer of the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant. The 1^st defendant has not offered any convincing and satisfactory explanation in the written statement as to why the applicant was not served with notice with regard to extension of the bidding date and as well as the date of auction. The above conduct of the 1^st defendant throws a cloud of doubt on the aforesaid measure undertaken by him.

¶66

This Tribunal finds that there is considerable force and merit in the submission of the counsel for the applicant that sale of the secured asset was conducted in total disregard of Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, since there cannot be any retrospective extension of time for entertaining the bid beyond the stipulated date fixed in Annexure B1 sale notice.

¶67

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that sale of the secured asset to the 2^nd defendant is illegal, null and void and hence, the sale of the secured asset to the 2^nd defendant and Annexure A29 sale certificate and registration of sale certificate Annexure A30 are liable to be set aside.

¶68

In the result, SA No.824/2024 stands allowed, setting aside the sale of the secured asset to the 2^nd defendant, and Annexure A29 sale certificate and Annexure A30 registration of sale certificate.

¶69

The 2^nd defendant who is the auction purchaser, is directed to hand over the secured asset sold to him to the 1^st defendant within a period of 30 days from today. The 1^st defendant is directed to return the entire purchase money paid by the 2^nd defendant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the said amount for the period from the

¶70

Page 9 of 14

¶71

SA No.824 of 2024

¶72

date of payment of the purchase price to the date of refund of the money to him within a period of 30 days from today.

¶73

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶74

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07^th day of October, 2025.

¶75

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

al/-

Page 10 of 14

SA No.824 of 2024

List of documents filed by the Applicant along with the S.A.

¶80

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	06.2012	True copy of letter issued by State Bank of India to the applicant.	Annexure A1
2.	15.06.2012	True copy of letter issued by the bank in the name of the applicant.	Annexure A2
3.	11.07.2012	True copy of communication issued to the applicant concerning the 5 facilities availed.	Annexure A3
4.	18.04.2013	True copy of communication issued to theapplicant by the bank.	Annexure A4
5.	……	True copy of demand notice issued to the applicant by State Bank of India with respect another loan facility guaranteed by the applicant.	Annexure A5
6.	28.12.2013	True copy of forwarding letter concerning service of possession notice to the applicant.	Annexure A6
7.	…	True copy of caveat filed by the Bank before theDRT,Ernakulam	Annexure A7
8.	02.01.2014	True copy of caveat filed by the Bank before the DRT-3, Chennai	Annexure A8
9.	02.04.2014	True copy of communication issued to the applicant by State Bank of India.	Annexure A9
10.	09.09.2014	True copy of communication issued by the 1^stdefendant to the company.	Annexure A10
11	28.10.2016	True copy of possession notice issued by the defendant to the applicant.	Annexure A11
12.	14.08.2017	True copy of the letter issued by the 1^st defendant to the applicant.	Annexure A12
13.	13.11.2020	True copy of possession notice issued by the1^st defendant to the applicant.	Annexure A13
14.	11.08.2023	True copy of caveat filed by the defendantinSub Court, Ottapalam.	Annexure A14
15.	14.09.2023	True copy of reply issued by counsel for the applicant to the second defendant.	Annexure A15.
16.	06.09.2023	True copy of mail received by the applicantfromthe1^st defendant.	Annexure A16

¶81

Page 11 of 14

¶82

SA No.824 of 2024

¶83

17.	06.09.2023	True copy of the letter issued by the 1^st defendant to the applicant.	Annexure A17
18.	18.09.2023	True copy of letter given by the applicant.	Annexure A18
19.	…..	True copy of sale notice obtained by the applicant from the website of the 1^st defendant.	Annexure A19
20.	……	True copy of sale notice obtained by the applicant from the website of the first defendant	Annexure A20
21.	17.07.2023	True copy of newspaper publication in Mathrubhumidaily.	Annexure A21
22.	…..	True copy of Photograph showing the nature ofthe property ofthe applicant.	Annexure A22
23.	11.09.2023	True copy of the information furnished by the postalauthority.	Annexure A23
24.	05.10.2023	True copy of the information furnished by the postalauthority.	Annexure A24
25.	07.04.2014	True copy of the letter issued by the first defendant to the applicant.	Annexure A25
26.	17.11.2023	True copy of the sale notice issued by the 1^stdefendant.	Annexure A26
27.	…..	True copy of the postal cover in Which Annexure A26 was served to the applicant	Annexure A27
28.	26.10.2023	True copy of the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st defendant in W.P.(c) No.33109/2023.	Annexure A28
29.	21.08.2023	True copy of Sale certificate issued by the1^st defendant to the 2^nd defendant.	Annexure A29
30.	……	True copy of registered sale Certificate No.2082/2023 of Viyyur SRO in the name of2^nd defendant.	Annexure A30
31.	10.10.2023	True copy of interim order passed in WPC 33109/23..	Annexure A31
32.	10.09.2024	True copy of judgment passed in WPC No.33109/2023.	Annexure A32
33.	24.09.2024	True copy of judgment in W.A. No.1493/2024.	Annexure A33

¶84

Page 12 of 14

¶85

SA No.824 of 2024

¶86

List of documents filed by the defendants along with the written statement

¶87

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	13.09.2022	The copy of the E-Auction notice issued by the1^st defendant.	Annexure B1
2.	19.06.2023	Copy of the Auction notice.	Annexure-B2
3.	19.06.2023	The copy of the paper publication in The Hindu and Mathrubhumi Palakkad Edition & New Indian Express and Dinamani Chennai & Coimbatore Edition.	Annexure-B3
4.	…..	True copy of the Photographs of Affixture of E Auction notice on Secured Asset.	Annexure-B4
5.	17.07.2023	The true copy of the Corrigendum Notice.	Annexure-B5
6.	17.07.2023	The copy of the paper publication in the Hindu Kozhikode Edition and Mathrubhumi PalakkadEdition.	Annexure-B6
7.	02.09.2023	The true copy of the agreement for sale registeredasNo.1926/1/2023	Annexure B7
8.	16.10.2025	The true copy of the order passed by DRT IIChennai inOA 161/2013.	Annexure B8
9.	08.12.2025	Recovery Certificate No.863/2015 was issued by the Hon’ble DRT II Chennai for Rs.36.63 crores as on8.12.2015.	Annexure B9
10.	18.12.2015	True copy of the demand notice issued by recovery officer in DRC No.863/2015.	Annexure B10
11.	….	True copyof the returned notice covers	Annexure B11
12.	20.11.2020	The true copy of the possession intimation notice.	Annexure B12

¶88

Page 13 of 14

¶89

SA No.824 of 2024

¶90

13.	20.11.2020	The true copy of the photographs of affixture of possession intimation notice on the secured asset.	Annexure B13
14.	20.08.2021	The true copy of the letter issued by the secured creditor appointing the security guards.	Annexure B14

¶91

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶92

al/-

¶93

Page 14 of 14

C Vijayakumari v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Erstwhile Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Vijayakumari v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Erstwhile Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Surender

Hdfc Bank versus Veena Trans Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank versus Sachin

Hdfc Bank versus M/s Ram Kumar Enterprises

Ms Shakti Food Industries versus Indian Bank

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Shalendra Jain and Ors.