In this case, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the second appeal filed by the developers challenging the sale notice. The court did not hear the matter due to the non-appearance of the applicant and the absence of a prima facie case based on the lower court records.
The Second Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI
Dated this 4th Day of May, 2026
PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA Presiding Officer
S.A. No.13 of 2025
Versus
1
: - PROCEEDINGS DT.04.05.2026 - :
Applicant by none.
Caveator /R1 by Shri. P. V. Muralidhar, Adv a/w Shri. P.M. Surendhar, Adv. R2/auction purchaser by Shri. Nirnay Shanbough, Adv – appears through VC a/w Ms. Leelavathy, Adv.
The Ld. Counsel for the bank submits that nothing survives for consideration and the auction purchaser is in the possession.
The applicant who challenges the sale notice is not present.
It seems that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. The auction purchaser submits that no right survives in favour of the applicant to challenge the sale notice.
In view of the above, SA stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
A copy of this order by communicated to the parties.
Sd/(A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Assistant who typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this 4th Day of May, 2026)
2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Propcare Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Mantri homes Pvt. Ltd.
The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank
M/s.Krishnapriya Reality LLP
A.S.Jayachandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
