Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s J J Traders

DRT16 Jul 2026OA/184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal addressed an application for recovery of a non-performing loan secured by title deeds. The Bank proved its case on record despite the absence of defendants. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing payment of the principal less any previously capitalized penal interest, with subsequent interest at 14% p.a. with half-yearly rests.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 27,96,214.65 (after deducting capitalized penal interest) plus subsequent interest at 14% p.a. with half-yearly rests and costs; liberty to sell mo

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s J J Traders — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

OA No. 184/2022

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI DATED THIS 16^th DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA, [PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA No.184/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s City Union Bank Ltd., Tiruchirapalli Karumandapam Branch, No.1/2 Dindugal Road, Karumandapam, Trichy-620 001, Rep. by its Branch Manager. ---Applicant Bank

¶7

And

¶8

M/s J J Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Jeyasingh Koyilraj, No. 5/1, Sriram Complex, Dindigul Main Road, Prattiyur, Srirangam (Tk.), Trichy - 620 009.

¶9

Mr. Jeyasingh Koyilraj,

¶10

S/o Abraham, No.48, Arogyamatha Avenue, Jeyanagar Extn, Karumandapam, Trichy 620 001.

¶11

Mrs. J.Kulandai Therasu, W/o A. Jeyasingh Koyilraj, No.48, Arogyamatha Avenue, Jeyanagar Extn. Karumandapam, Trichy - 620 001.

¶12

---Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s Mu. Prakash.

¶14

Page 1 of 11

¶15

OA No. 184/2022

¶16

This Original Application was heard and fixed for passing final order before me in the presence of the above said Advocate for Applicant Bank and the Defendants having been set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments of Counsel for Applicant Bank and upon perusing the material available on the records and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGEMENT

¶18

1 . This Application has been filed under Sec.19 (1) of the "The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993" now amended as The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by the Applicant Bank on 29.04.2021 to recover from the Defendants a sum of Rs.27,96,214.65ps together with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. plus 2% penal interest with monthly rests in respect of OLCC Loan from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost and by sale of mortgaged/hypothecated properties, more fully described in Schedules of the application.

¶19

2 . The brief averments of the application filed by the Applicant Bank are as follows:-

¶20

The 1^st defendant doing the Cement and its allied business and it is represented by its Proprietor 2^nd Defendant Mr. Jeyasingh Kyuilraj. The 2^nd defendant and 3^rd Defendant have been jointly approached the Applicant Bank for the certain credit facility to M/s J.J. Traders, 1^st respondent herein and same was sanctioned by the Bank to the extent of Rs.20,00,000.00. The title deed documents of 3^rd Defendant herein already deposited with Bank for the amount of Rs.18 Lakhs and same had been continued to this loan account also and Letter of continuity had been executed by defendants. The title deed documents of 3^rd defendant deposited with Bank and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 29-12-2015 bearing document No. 7565 of 2015 and Memorandum of extension of Equitable Mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds dated 27-12-2016 and registered under document No. 132 of 2017, dated 11-01-2017 infavour of the Bank. Thereafter same was registered in the Bank's EM register as serial Nos. 015934 & 029773 respectively.

¶21

The Applicant Bank sanctioned the credit limits from Rs.20,00,00,000.00 to the 1-3 Defendants and borrower/s acknowledged the same. The 1^st Defendant represented by its proprietor and other defendants agreed to abide by the terms and conditions prescribed by the Bank. All the Defendants herein also agreed to stand as Guarantors for the loan sanctioned to 1-3 Defendants.

¶22

Page 2 of 11

¶23

OA No. 184/2022

¶24

In consideration of the said secured working capital loan purposes, the 1-3 Defendants jointly executed a Demand Promissory Note on 27-122016 for the sum of Rs.20 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 1 year MCLR / 4.25 Percent above the CUB's 1 year MCLR subject to a minimum of 14% pa with monthly rests or at such other rates and rests as may be revised by the Bank on its own or as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. Thereafter, the 1-3 Defendants jointly executed a Letter of Revival by confirmation of Balance on 28-05-2019 infavour of the Applicant Bank.

¶25

The 2^nd Defendant herein has obtained Credit Card facility from the Applicant Bank based upon the Letter for continuation of EM in the case of issuing of credit card facilities executed by 3^rd Defendant for the credit card limit of Rs.1,00,000/- and cash limit of Rs.20,000/-. The 3^rd Defendant has confirmed continue of mortgage by deposit of title deeds which already made as security said credit card facility. The D-1 to D-3 have jointly availed the further enhanced adhoc credit facility of Rs.1,00,000/-under STOD scheme for the working capital in same loan account No. 512020010013260. For which, they jointly executed a Demand Promissory Note on 29-05-2019 and Letter of Continuity also jointly executed by D-1 to D-3 infavour of the Applicant Bank.

¶26

In consideration of the said working Capital Loan facility with Adhoc limit and Credit card facility,

¶27

(a). The D-1 to D-3 have jointly executed a Demand Promissory Note infavour of the Applicant Bank on 27-12-2016 for the loan credit facility of Rs.20 Lakhs.

¶28

(b). Letter of Continuity dated 27-12-2016 jointly executed by D-1 to D-3 infavour of the Applicant Bank.

¶29

(c). Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 27-12-2016 executed by 1^st Defendant represented by its Proprietor and hypothecated the stocks of Cement stored at premises of 1^st defendant.

¶30

(d). Annexure-B (Letter for continuation of EM in the case of issuing of credit card facilities) executed by 2^nd Defendant

¶31

(e). Letter of Revival Secured advances with confirmation of Balance dated 28-05-2019 jointly executed by D-1 to D-3.

¶32

(f). D-1 to D-3 have jointly executed a Demand Promissory Note infavour of the Applicant Bank on 29-05-2019 for the adhoc loan credit facility of Rs. 1 lakh.

¶33

(g). Letter of Continuity dated 29-05-2019 jointly executed by D-1 to D-3 infavour of the Applicant Bank.

¶34

Page 3 of 11

¶35

OA No. 184/2022

¶36

The schedule of properties have been purchased by 3^rd Defendant under registered document Nos. 7109 of 2008 & 3293 of 2010 and have been deposited with the Applicant Bank for the sanctioned loan amount. Further, 3^rd defendant has executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 29-12-2015 infavour of the Applicant Bank and same was registered under document. No. 7565 of 2015 and thereafter Extension MOD dated 2712-2016 was registered under document No. 132 of 2017.

¶37

After availing the loan, defendants were not regular in the matter of repayment. The defendant made several promises, but they failed to keep up their promises. Thus the loan account has become NPA on 12.08.2019. Therefore, the Bank has issued Notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI ACT, 2002 on 16-11-2019 demanding the defendants to pay the outstanding amount along with subsequent interest and they received the notice. However, the Defendants did not have taken any sincere steps to pay the outstanding amount or to close the loan accounts. The possession notice also issued and the Applicant Bank took the symbolic possession of the schedule mentioned property on 20.02.2020. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank has issued Tender cum Auction Sale notice dated 18-06-2020 and no bidder is available due to pandemic situation. As per the statement of accounts the Defendants have to pay a total sum of Rs. 27,96,214.65ps as on date 19/03/2021 with subsequent interest at the rate of 14% in loan account No. 512020010013260, with Monthly rests along with penal interest of 2% for the loan availed by the Defendants as mentioned above till the date of realization and costs thereon

¶38

Despite repeated demands and reminders, made by the Applicant Bank, the Defendants have failed and neglected to repay and adjust their liability. Hence, the Applicant Bank has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,96,214.65ps together with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. plus 2% penal interest with monthly rests in respect of OLCC Loan from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost.

¶39

The Applicant Bank has submitted the following documents in support its claim in the OA, which are as follows:

¶40

S. No.	Date	Description of document	Exhibits
1.	27-12-2016	Sanction Letter for Advances issued to 1-3 Defendants, by Applicant Bank and accepted bythem.	Ex.No.A-01
2.	27-12-2016	Demand Promissory Note, for the sanction limit of Rs.20,00,000/-jointly executed by 1- 3 Defendants infavour of the Applicant Bank.	Ex.No.A-02

¶41

Page 4 of 11

¶42

OA No. 184/2022

¶43

3.	27-12-2016	Letter of continuity executed by defendants infavouroftheApplicantBank	Ex.No.A-03
4.	27-12-2016	Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation executed by1st defendant	Ex.No.A-04
5.	04-10-2017	Card facility Annexure B in the matter of Credit	Ex. No. A-05
6.	28-05-2019	Letter of Revival with confirmation of Balance executed by1-3 Defendants	Ex. No. A-06
7.	29-05-2019	Sanction Letter for Advances issued by the Applicant Bank.	Ex. No. A-07
8.	29-05-2019	Demand Promissory Note for the amount of Rs.1 Lakh executed by the 1-3 defendants infavouroftheBank	Ex. No. A-08
9.	29-05-2019	Letter of continuity executed by Defendants infavouroftheApplicantBank	Ex. No. A-09
10.	31-01-1986	Sale deed executed by Savarimuthu infavour of Mr. Devendra Thevar, bearing Document No. 676 of 1986	Ex. No. A-10
11.	09-06-1986	Sale deed executed by Savarimuthu infavour of Mr. Devendra Thevar, bearing Document No. 3310 of 1986/	Ex. No. A-11
12.	17-04-2000	General Power of Attorney deed bearing Document No. 354 of 2000 executed by Devendra Theva	Ex. No. A-12
13.	30-07-2007	Sale deed executed by R. Durairaj as Power Agent infavour of Sivakama Sundari, bearing Document No. 4085 of2007	Ex. No. A-13
14.	29-11-2007	General Power of Attorney deed bearing Document No. 3318 of 2007, executed by Sivakama Sundari	Ex. No. A-14
15.	12-03-2008	Sale deed executed by Charles as Power Agent infavour of Savarimuthu, Doc. No. 1423 of2008.	Ex. No. A-15
16.	08-09-2008	Sale deed bearing Doc. No. 5260 of 2008, executed by Savarimuthu infavour of A. Devaraj	Ex. No. A-16
17.	26-11-2008	Sale deed bearing Doc. No. 6775 of 2008, executed by R.Durairaj as Power Agent infavour of Savarimuthu	Ex. No. A-17
18.	17-12-2008	Sale deed bearing Doc. No. 7109 of 2008, executed by Devaraj infavour of Kulandai Therasu.	Ex. No. A-18
19.	26-04-2010	Sale deed executed by A.Savarimuthu infavour of Kulandai Thearsu, Doc. No. 3292 of2010	Ex. No. A-19
20.	29-12-2015	Mernorandum of Deposit of Title deeds executed by Kulandai Therasu infavour of the Applicant Bank, bearing Document No. 7565 of 2015.	Ex. No. A-20

¶44

Page 5 of 11

¶45

OA No. 184/2022

¶46

21.	27-12-2016	Extension of MOD executed Kulandai Therasu infavour of the by Applicant Bank, bearingDoc. No. 132 of 2017	Ex. No. A-21
22.	04-03-2019	Affidavit cum Indemnity executed by J.Kulandai Therasu before the Notary Public.	Ex. No. A-22
23.	16-11-2019	Demand Notice issued by the Authorized officer of the Applicant Bank	Ex. No. A-23
24.	20-02-2020	Possession Notice issued by the Applicant Bank under the SARFAESI Act, to the Defendants	Ex. No. A-24
25.	24-02-2020	Report on Valuation issued by Panel Value of the Applicant Bank over the schedule of properties.	Ex. No. A-25
26.	18-06-2020	Tender Cum Auction Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 over the schedule of properties	Ex. No. A-26
27.	-	Statement of Loan Accounts of 1st Defendant in Loan Account No. 512020010013260 for the period from 01- 06-2019 to21-01-2021	Ex. No. A-27

¶47

SCHEDULE OF PROPOERTIES

¶48

Schedule -A- Plot No.97

¶49

In Trichirappalli District, Trichy RD, Jt.1 & II SRO, Srirangam Taluk, Mathur Village, ayan Punjai S.F. No. 4 Part, Acre 3.90 Cents, S.F. No.5 Part, Acre 3.91 Cents, S.F. No.6 Part, Acre 1.58 Cents, S.F. No. 9 Part, Acre 1.26 Cents, S.F. No. 10 Part, Acre 0.65 Cents and Joint SRO, Srirangam Taluk, Periyanayaki Chatram Village, Panchayath Board Limits. The above Village limits ayan punjai S.F. No. 24 Part Acre 0.79 Cents in total 6 items of the above properties Acre 12.09 Cents combined the lands and divided into individual housing plots under the name and style of 'Sugantha Nagar', in Plot No.97, of an extent of 3544 Sq. feet.

¶50

Four boundaries:

¶51

East and North of 30 feet vide layout road,

¶52

West of Plot No. 98,

¶53

South of Plot No. 113 and 30 feet Road,

¶54

within this East-West 33 feet on the North, 74 feet on the South, NorthSouth 72 feet on West, 60 feet on the East, total extent of 3544 Sq. feet (329.25 Sq. mt.) Plot with all usual pathway rights. The above plots situated in mathur Village S.F. No. 4/11 and 4/12. The above Plot within the limits of manikandam Panchayath Union, Mathaur Village Panchayath Board.

¶55

Page 6 of 11

¶56

OA No. 184/2022

¶57

Schedule -B- Plot No.98

Four boundaries:

East of Plot No.97,

North of 30 feet layout road,

¶62

West of Plot No.99,

¶63

South of Plot No.113, Devendradevar mania,

¶64

within this East-West 40 feet on the North, 40 feet the South, North-South 60 feet on the West, 60 feet on East, Total extent of 2400 Sq. feet (223 Sq. mt), vacant plot with all usual pathway rights. The above plots situated in Mathur Village S.F. No.4/11 & 4/12. The above plot within the limits of Mathur Village Panchayath at Sugantha Nagar.

¶65

Schedule-C

¶66

Hypothecation of all current assets and all goods, stocks etc., all stored & kept at No. 5/1, Sriram Complex, Dindigul Main Road, Prattiyur, Srirangam (Tk.), Trichy 620 009, and at all working places of the 1^st defendant.

¶67

3 . On the other hand, Notices were issued to Defendants and since from the beginning of the case, there was no representation on behalf of the Defendants. Hence, Defendants were set ex-parte.

¶68

4. Now the main point for consideration before me is as to whether the Applicant has been able to prove his case on his own leg?

¶69

Having gone through the affidavit of the applicant and the documents filed by them and also considering the submission of the counsel for the Applicant, I find that the Applicant Bank, in order to prove its claim, has filed Proof Affidavit executed by one Mr. S. Gopal, who is the Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶70

He has stated in his affidavit that the defendants has availed OLCC Loan from the Applicant Bank, but they failed to pay the outstanding loan amount, hence he has filed the case. The applicant bank has also filed the

¶71

Page 7 of 11

¶72

OA No. 184/2022

¶73

documents signed by the defendants at the time of sanctioning the loan amount, which have been marked as exhibits No.A-01 to A-27 in support of its claim in the OA.

¶74

I perused the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and I find that the Sanction Letter for Advances issued to Defendants 1 to 3 by the Applicant Bank and accepted by them has been marked as Ex. No. A-01, Demand Promissory Note for the sanction limit of Rs.20,00,000/-, jointly executed by Defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the Applicant Bank has been marked as Ex.No.A-02, Letter of Continuity executed by the Defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank has been marked as Ex.No.A-03, Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation executed by the 1^st Defendant has been marked as Ex. No. A-04, Annexure 'B' in the matter of Credit Card Facility has been marked as Ex. No. A-05, The Letter of Revival with Confirmation of Balance executed by Defendants 1 to 3 has been marked as Ex. No. A-06, Sanction Letter for Advances issued by the Applicant Bank has been marked as Ex. No. A-07, Demand Promissory Note for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/executed by Defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the Applicant Bank has been marked as Ex. No. A-08, Letter of Continuity executed by the Defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank has been marked as Ex. No. A-09, Sale Deed executed by Savarimuthu in favour of Mr. Devendra Thevar bearing Document No. 676 of 1986 has been marked as Ex. No. A-10, Sale Deed executed by Savarimuthu in favour of Mr. Devendra Thevar bearing Document No. 3310 of 1986 has been marked as Ex. No. A-11.

¶75

The General Power of Attorney Deed bearing Document No. 354 of 2000 executed by Devendra Thevar has been marked as Ex. No. A-12, Sale Deed executed by R. Durairaj, as Power Agent, in favour of Sivakama Sundari bearing Document No. 4085 of 2007 has been marked as Ex. No. A- 13, General Power of Attorney Deed bearing Document No. 3318 of 2007 executed by Sivakama Sundari has been marked as Ex. No. A-14, Sale Deed executed by Charles, as Power Agent, in favour of Savarimuthu bearing Document No. 1423 of 2008 has been marked as Ex. No. A-15. The Sale Deed bearing Document No. 5260 of 2008 executed by Savarimuthu in favour of A. Devaraj has been marked as Ex. No. A-16, Sale Deed bearing Document No. 6775 of 2008 executed by R. Durairaj, as Power Agent, in favour of Savarimuthu has been marked as Ex. No. A-17, Sale Deed bearing Document No. 7109 of 2008 executed by Devaraj in favour of Kulandai Therasu has been marked as Ex. No. A-18, Sale Deed executed by A. Savarimuthu in favour of Kulandai Therasu bearing Document No. 3292 of 2010 has been marked as Ex. No. A-19, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds executed by Kulandai Therasu in favour of the Applicant Bank bearing Document No. 7565 of 2015 has been marked as Ex. No. A-20.

¶76

Page 8 of 11

¶77

OA No. 184/2022

¶78

The Extension of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds executed by Kulandai Therasu in favour of the Applicant Bank bearing Document No. 132 of 2017 has been marked as Ex. No. A-21. Affidavit-cum-Indemnity executed by J. Kulandai Therasu before the Notary Public has been marked as Ex.No.A-22, Demand Notice issued by the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank has been marked as Ex. No. A-23, Possession Notice issued by the Applicant Bank under the SARFAESI Act to the Defendants has been marked as Ex. No. A-24, The Valuation Report issued by the Panel Valuer of the Applicant Bank in respect of the schedule properties has been marked as Ex. No. A-25. The Tender-cum-Auction Sale Notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the schedule properties has been marked as Ex. No. A-26. The Statement of Loan Account of the 1^st Defendant in Loan Account No. 512020010013260 for the period from 01.06.2019 to 21.01.2021 has been marked as Ex. No. A-27. So the averments of the applicant as well as the statement of the pleading have been corroborated by the above mentioned documents.

¶79

On the otherhand as the Defendants remained ex-parte, the claim of the Applicant Bank is neither disproved nor dislodged and goes on record as proved. Accordingly a cumulative analysis of both the Proof Affidavit and documents marked by the Applicant Bank would prove the claim of the Applicant Bank in the OA.

¶80

In this OA, from Perusal of Statement of Accounts (Ex. No. A-05), I find that the Applicant Bank has capitalized the penal interest only in the Cash Credit Loan account of the defendant, which is against the policy of RBI guidelines.

¶81

“ The Reserve Bank of India strictly prohibits the capitalization of Penal charges. Under current RBI regulations, any penalty for non-compliance with loan terms must be treated as a distinct “Penal Charge” rather than added to the Principal outstanding amount. This ensures that banks and NBFCs cannot compute further interest on the penalty amount themselves.”

¶82

So far the claim of interest is concerned, it is a well settled Law that the Tribunal has got powers to award pendente lite interest in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.M. Veerapa Vs Canara Bank (reported in AIR 98(1), 1101 & in Central bank of India Vs Ravindra and OS (AIR, 2001(1), 3095).

¶83

So far the penal interest is concerned Hon'ble supreme court stated in the said judgement as followed " Though interest can be capitalised on the anology that the interest falling due on the accrued date and remaining unpaid, partakes the character of amount advanced on that date, yet penal

¶84

Page 9 of 11

¶85

OA No. 184/2022

¶86

interest, which is charged by way of penalty for non payment, cannot be capitalized. Further interest, i.e interest on interest, whether simple, compound or penal, cannot be claimed on the amount of penal interest. Penal interest cannot be capitalized. It will be opposed to public policy ". However the Applicant Bank has already charged Penal Interest in the loan account of the Defendant before filing of this Original Application.

¶87

Therefore, this Original Application is allowed. The Applicant Bank is entitled for a final order on the following lines:-

¶88

The Applicant Bank is entitled to recover from the Defendants, a sum of Rs. 27,96,214.65ps ( after deduction of the capitalized penal interest from the outstanding amount i.e Rs. 27,96,214.65ps, till before the filing of the Original Application ) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 14% p.a. with half yearly rests in respect of OLCC Loan from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost. Accordingly, it is hereby

¶89

ORDERED

¶90

(a) That the Defendants are directed to pay jointly/severally for a sum of Rs. 27,96,214.65ps ( after deduction of the capitalized penal interest from the outstanding amount i.e Rs. 27,96,214.65ps, till before the filing of the Original Application ) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 14% p.a. with half yearly rests in respect of OLCC Loan from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶91

(b) In case of default of payment by the above mentioned Defendants, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell the movable / immovable properties more fully described in Schedule of the original application for appropriation of sale proceeds towards the satisfaction of amount due to the Applicant Bank.

¶92

Page 10 of 11

¶93

OA No. 184/2022

¶94

(c) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, after defraying the expenses of such sale, for the payment of all such amounts, the defendants are jointly/severally liable to pay the amount of such deficiency with interest mentioned above until realization.

¶95

(d) Any amount remitted during the course of this proceedings shall be given due credit, to the loan account of the defendants.

¶96

(e) Recovery Certificate be prepared, as per the directions given above, and issue accordingly. A copy of the order is to be communicated to the parties concerned, immediately.

¶97

(f) It is further ordered that the Applicant Bank shall file cost memo within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, so as to prepare the recovery certificate with cost for the OLCC loan and the Recovery Officer is also directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In case, cost memo is not filed before said period of one month, Recovery Certificate will be prepared with available records.

¶98

Dictated to P.Sharmila, LDC taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 16^th July, 2026.

¶99

Sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶100

Uploaded on 24.07.2026

¶101

Page 11 of 11

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s J J Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s J J Traders

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 Ramu

State Bank of India versus Haritha Industries

N D Mugeshkumar versus Shriram Finance Limited

Asraf Skin Merchant versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus R.Hariharan prop of Tamil Agency

M Subasini versus Bank of India