Canara Bank v. Subramanian
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner bank filed an application for recovery of housing loan dues under RDB Act. Defendants did not appear. Court allowed application, directing recovery of principal, interest, and costs via affidavit evidence.
What did the court decide?
Direction to recover Rs.32,32,518/- plus future interest and costs; liberty to sell mortgaged property and sell other personal assets of defendants for balance dues.
What the court decided
O.A. No.226 of 2023
29.06.2026
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.226 of 2023
M/s Canara Bank, Rep by its Senior Manager, No.150, Habibullah road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017 ….Applicant -Vs-
- Mr. C. Subramanian, S/o S.Chockalingam, Old No.15, New No.22, New street, West Mambalam, Chennai- 600 033
Also at
Mr. C. Subramanian, S/o S. Chockalingam Dr.MGR Deemed University Education Research institute, Maduravoyal, Chennai- 600 095
- Mrs. C. Parvathi Krishnan, W/o Mr. C.Subramanian, Old No.15, New No.22, New Street, West Mambalam, Chennai- 600 033 …..Defendants
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank has successfully proved its claim for recovery of debt against the defendants ex-parte.
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction and the application is within limitation.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
M/s Canara Bank
- respondent
C. Subramanian
- respondent
C. Parvathi Krishnan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court