Dismissed

The Trance v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT29 Apr 2026SA/177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant challenged a SARFAESI auction of mortgaged property initiated by Punjab & Sind Bank. The court dismissed the application, holding the applicant time-barred for failing to challenge the auction to the DRT despite specific directions from that authority. The court found no illegality in the account classification or auction process, noting the applicant failed to satisfy restructured l

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; the sale certificate issued in favor of auction purchasers was confirmed.

The Trance versus Punjab and Sind Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.177 of 2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No.177 OF 2023 M/S THE TRANCE

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

PUNJAB & SIND BANK AND OTHERS

¶6

29.04.2026 Item No.24

¶7

Argued by: Ms. Usha Singh, Counsel for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. A.B.S Sidhu, Counsel for the Respondent Bank. Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Counsel for Auction Purchasers.

¶9

M/s The Trance (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against Punjab & Sind Bank and others (Respondents).

¶10

Admittedly, Punjab & Sind Bank had sanctioned the following credit facilities to the Applicant: -

¶11

Sr. No.	Date	Type of Loan	Amount
1.	29.01.2018	Vyapar Term Loan	4.00 crores
2.	20.06.2020	GECL Term Loan	70.00 lacs
3.	29.05.2021	GECL Term Loan	70.00 lacs

¶12

To secure the loan, Applicant had created security interest in respect of land measuring 0-14-44 hectare situated at Mohal Sheela, Tehsil and District Kangra , in favour of the Bank. Since, Applicant did not run the account properly, on 28.02.2023, Punjab & Sind Bank declared the account NPA. On 02.03.2023, Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2), demanding a sum of Rs. 4,01,95,250/- due as on 28.02.2023. On 25.04.2023, Applicant filed the objections under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. On 02.05.2023, Bank disposed of the objections filed by the Applicant. On 20.07.2023, Applicant filed the present SA. Bank obtained the DM order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 11.09.2023. Ultimately, on 15.12.2023, it took the physical possession of the secured asset. Though, earlier, Punjab & Sind Bank had issued the

¶13

¶14

SA No.177 of 2023

¶15

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶16

auction notice, yet it did not receive any bid. Thereafter, on 02.01.2024, it issued the auction notice again, fixing the auction for 12.02.2024. The auction was successful and Mr. Rakesh Kumar; Ms. Kamini Gupta; Mr. Gulshan Dhingra and Ms. Kavita Dhingra gave the highest bid of Rs.10,61,37,000/-. On 08.02.2024, Applicant moved an application for staying the auction fixed up for 12.02.2024. On 09.02.2024, counsel for the Applicant made a statement that Applicant was ready to deposit Rs. 91.05 lacs at any time. However, Mr. Sidhu, counsel for the Respondent Bank stated that the Bank has got the bids for the secured asset. Considering all the circumstances, this Tribunal on 09.02.2024 ordered that whereas, the Bank would be free to go ahead with the auction, yet it would not confirm the auction without order from this Tribunal and adjourned the case to 12.02.2024 as Mr. Sidhu, stated that he would produce either the authorized officer or any other competent officer of the Bank, who may take a decision in the matter. On 12.02.2024, Mr. Sidhu, confirmed that the Bank has received two bids and Applicant stated that he was ready to deposit Rs.1.50 crores within 15 days from 12.02.2024. Taking all these facts into consideration, this Tribunal ordered that in case the Applicant deposits Rs.1.50 crores within 15 days i.e. on or before 27.02.2024, Bank would not confirm the auction and the case was adjourned to 29.02.2024. However, on 24.02.2024 Applicant filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 63 of 2024, before the Hon’ble DRAT, New Delhi. This appeal was heard by the Hon’ble Chairperson, DRAT on 12.06.2024. Counsel for the Respondent Bank made a statement before the Hon’ble DRAT that he has supplied the details of the auction purchasers including their addresses, to the counsel for the Applicant appearing before the DRT and the case was adjourned to 21.06.2024. On 21.06.2024, auction purchaser appeared and the Hon’ble Chairperson, DRAT ordered that Respondent would file reply to the

¶17

¶18

SA No.177 of 2023

¶19

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶20

application as well as appeal expeditiously. Ultimately, vide order dated 08.04.2025, the Hon’ble Chairperson, DRAT ordered that the appellant should first move DRT and challenge the auction. Counsel for the Applicant made a statement before the Hon’ble DRAT that she would challenge the same within 15 days from 08.04.2025. While disposing of the Miscellaneous Appeal, the Hon’ble DRAT also ordered that for 15 days Respondent Bank shall not take physical possession of the property in question. (This deserves to be mentioned that the Bank had already taken the physical possession on 15.12.2023. It appears that the Hon’ble Chairperson wanted to convey that Bank will not deliver the physical possession to the auction purchaser). On 09.05.2025, Applicant filed amended SA before this Tribunal. This deserves to be mentioned that on 26.02.2024 and 27.02.2024, auction purchasers applied for extension of time to pay the balance sale consideration. Vide order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the Authorized Officer of the Respondent Bank, the auction purchasers were granted 90 days’ time to deposit the money. On 23.05.2024, auction purchasers deposited the balance sale consideration and the Bank issued the sale certificate in their favor on that very day i.e. 23.05.2024. As mentioned earlier, on 09.05.2025, the borrower filed the amended SA. This amended SA was taken up for hearing on 15.05.2025 on the basis of application for preponement filed by the Applicant. On 15.05.2025, counsel for the Applicant stated that Applicant had approached the Bank to make the payment. However, Bank had refused to accept the same. Counsel for the Applicant stated that she would produce the material on record to that effect and requested that the case be put up on 16.05.2025 as she intended to move an application for amendment of SA challenging the auction. (This deserves to be mentioned that the Applicant had filed the amended SA on 09.05.2025 without filing an application for amendment of

¶21

¶22

SA No.177 of 2023

¶23

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶24

SA. Later, Applicant realized that it had not filed any application for amendment of SA). On 16.05.2025, application for amendment was filed. Vide order dated 23.05.2025, this application was allowed subject to all just grounds that may be available to the parties. Accordingly, amended SA was filed and notice of the same was given to the Bank as well as auction purchasers. It appears that reply to the amended SA was filed by the Bank on 18.06.2025 and the auction purchaser also filed reply on 02.07.2025.

¶25

I have heard Ms. Usha Singh, counsel for the Applicant; Mr. A.B.S. Sidhu, counsel for the Respondent Bank and Mr. Yogesh Kumar, counsel for the auction purchasers. 4. Ms. Usha Singh, counsel for the Applicant, argued that the Bank has initiated action under the SARFAESI Act in violation of RBI guidelines. Elaborating her contentions, she submitted that on 02.03.2023, Bank had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The said notice also included the amounts pertaining to GECL-I and GECL-II. She submitted that, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in several judgments, loans backed by Government guarantees cannot be declared as NPAs. Accordingly, the notice under Section 13(2) is defective and liable to be quashed. She further submitted that the GECL-II account was declared NPA on 28.02.2023. The moratorium period for the said account was valid until 31.05.2023. She also submitted that the Bank has charged compound and penal interest amounting to approximately Rs.37.00 lacs during the moratorium period as well as during the COVID-19 period, despite clear directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others (W.P. (C) No.476 of 2020) . She further submitted that the Bank has failed to take into consideration the hardships faced by the Applicant due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was grossly negligent in not restructuring both MSME units.

¶26

¶27

SA No.177 of 2023

¶28

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶29

According to her, the Bank acted contrary to law and foreclosed the Applicant’s rights by accelerating the classification of the accounts as NPAs. She argued that SARFAESI proceedings are not applicable to viable sick MSME accounts and that it is the statutory duty of the Bank to rehabilitate such accounts in the public interest. She referred to RBI Circular No.RPCD.CO.MSME & NFS.BC.40/06.02.31/2012-2013 dated 01.11.2012. She further submitted that the Bank ignored all efforts made by the Applicant to restructure the accounts. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s J.S. International v. Punjab & Sind Bank , wherein it was held that while examining the legality and validity of actions taken by secured creditors, the Tribunal is bound to consider issues relating to one-time settlement or restructuring of the loan. She also submitted that the Bank did not provide any opportunity for settlement before declaring the account as NPA, and referred to Master Circular No.DBOD.No.BP.BC.21/21.04.048/2010-11 dated 01.07.2010. Further, she submitted that apart from the subject property, there exists another secured property, i.e., a petrol pump measuring 1-0-2 bighas situated at Mohal Lachkandi, Sub-Tehsil Tikken, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, over which security interest had also been created. She argued that the Bank could have recovered the outstanding dues by selling the said petrol pump. She alleged that the respondent Bank acted in connivance with respondent Nos.2 to 5 and, instead of proceeding against the petrol pump, illegally auctioned the hotel property. In support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhikchand S/o Dhondiram Mutha (deceased) through LRs v. Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (deceased) through LRs (Civil Appeal No. 5026 of 2023) and LICA (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator (1996) 85 Comp Cas 788 (SC) . She further submitted that the Bank sold the property at 50% of its total value,

¶30

¶31

SA No.177 of 2023

¶32

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶33

which is illegal. She argued that the auction purchaser failed to deposit the balance amount within 90 days as prescribed by law. The Bank had confirmed the auction on 12.02.2024 therefore, the balance amount ought to have been deposited within 90 days. However, no written communication extending the time was issued by the Bank, and the sale certificate was ultimately issued on 23.05.2024, beyond the prescribed period. She submitted that the Applicant is ready to deposit the remaining amount. However, the Bank has arbitrarily shown the outstanding amount as Rs.4,99,13,524.74p (excluding expenses) as on 31.03.2024. She further submitted that the Bank has illegally imposed heavy penal charges and capitalized the same. She submitted that the amount increased from Rs.4,99,13,524.74p as on 31.03.2024 to Rs.5,17,40,757/- as per letter dated 31.05.2024. She also argued that the Bank failed to disclose encumbrances in the auction notice and did not provide a mandatory 30 days’ notice to the Applicant for redemption of the property. In this regard, she relied upon Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 610 and ITC Limited v. Blue Coast Hotels Limited . Winding up her arguments, Ms. Usha Singh submitted that the entire SARFAESI action, including the auction, deserves to be set aside.

¶34

Per contra , Mr. Sidhu, counsel for the Bank, submitted that the present SA is time-barred. The auction notice was issued on 02.01.2024, and the auction was held on 12.02.2024. The sale certificate was issued on 23.05.2024. The amendment application was filed beyond 45 days from the date of confirmation of the sale. It is submitted that no application for condonation of delay was filed by the Applicant. Mr. Sidhu, further submitted that the Applicants are not covered by the circular dated 01.11.2012 issued by RBI with regard to Sick Micro and Small Enterprises, as it was not a sick unit at this stage. Applicant failed to submit the

¶35

¶36

SA No.177 of 2023

¶37

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶38

financial papers despite numerous reminders. The account was declared NPA on 28.02.2023 after the Applicant failed to pay the overdue amount despite reminders. Mr. Sidhu, submitted that vide order dated 08.04.2025, the Applicant was permitted to challenge the auction only. However, the Applicant, apart from challenging the sale, has amended other grounds also, which cannot be done. He further argued that Mridul Sharma, proprietor of Hotel Trance, is also the owner of M/s Himachal Gas and Petroleum Company, which was sanctioned a Vyapar term loan of Rs.40.00 lacs vide sanction letter dated 14.12.2021 and Vyapar OD of Rs. 20.00 lacs vide sanction letter dated 14.12.2021. The said loan facilities were also secured by the mortgage of the petrol pump site measuring 1-0-2 bighas situated at Mohal Lachkandi, Tehsil Padhar and District Mandi, and land measuring 0- 14-44 hectare situated at Mohal Sheela, Tehsil and District Kangra. Apart from this, Smt. Shaloo, W/o Mridul Sharma, had also been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 20.00 lacs vide sanction letter dated 24.03.2021 against the security of the property in this case. It is stated that the Applicant failed to maintain financial discipline and was asked to clear the overdue amount to avoid the slippage of the account into NPA. However, without any result, Applicant was also directed to submit the balance sheets and other financial papers for renewal/rescheduling. Bank had issued letters/emails dated 08.02.2022, 09.03.2022, 21.03.2022, 06.05.2022, 11.10.2022, 13.11.2022, 06.02.2022, 12.12.2022, 12.01.2023, 19.01.2023, and 06.02.2023 respectively. It is submitted that in reply to the notice under Section 13(2), Applicant had filed objections on 25.04.2023, which were responded to by the Bank on 02.05.2023. The Bank had taken physical possession on 15.12.2023 on the basis of the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the DM. Bank had put up the property for auction on 12.02.2024 at the reserve price of Rs.9,41,87,000/-. The sale notice was duly served upon the Applicant

¶39

¶40

SA No.177 of 2023

¶41

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶42

and also published in Indian Express on 03.01.2024 and Amar Ujala. It was affixed on the property on 02.01.2024. It was also served upon the Applicant by registered post (Annexure R-13 to R-16). Bank had obtained the valuation from two approved valuers. The Bank was able to sell the property by auction on 12.02.2024 at the highest bid of Rs.10,61,37,000/in favor of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Smt. Kamini Gupta, Sh. Gulshan Dhingra, and Smt. Kavita Dhingra. The auction purchaser had deposited 25% of the bid price. The confirmation of the sale was stayed by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2024 for 15 days. The auction purchasers had sought an extension of 90 days vide letter/email dated 26.02.2024/27.02.2024. The request of the auction purchaser was accepted by the Bank vide letter dated 05.03.2024. The balance amount of Rs.7.96 crore was deposited by the auction purchaser with the Bank on 23.05.2024. The sale certificate dated 23.05.2024 was issued in favor of the auction purchasers. The extension requests/emails/letters dated 26.02.2024/27.02.2024 and 05.03.2024 are (Annexure R-20 and R-21). It is also stated that the SA was filed on 20^th July, 2023 to challenge the SARFAESI action. During the pendency of the SA, this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2024 had recorded the undertaking by the Applicant to deposit Rs.1.50 crore within 15 days, and the Bank was restrained from confirming the sale. However, the Applicant failed to comply with the order, and the auction was confirmed on 23.05.2024, and the sale certificate was issued on that day. It is also stated that the Applicant had challenged their own undertaking before the Hon’ble DRAT in Misc. Appeal No.63 of 2024. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025 in the presence of counsel for the parties, and it was held that for effective adjudication of proceedings relating to auction, the appellant has to first move the DRT. Counsel for the Applicant had made a statement that he will do the needful within 15 days from that day. The appeal was

¶43

¶44

SA No.177 of 2023

¶45

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶46

accordingly disposed of. It is stated that the Applicant failed to comply with the undertaking dated 08.04.2025. The Bank waited for the uploading of the order dated 08.04.2025, and after the same was uploaded on 06.05.2025, after going through the observations in the order, handed over possession of the property to the auction purchaser on 09.05.2025. Again, in pursuance to the earlier notice dated 28.05.2024, the Applicant was issued another notice dated 13.05.2025 to remove the inventory from the premises within fifteen days. The Applicant meanwhile again approached the Hon’ble DRAT and filed MA No.107/2025 in Misc. Appeal No.63/2024 praying for a direction to the auction purchaser to maintain status quo. Vide order dated 21.05.2025, DRAT directed the DRT-I Chandigarh to pass an appropriate order on 23.05.2025; till then, status quo in respect of the property was directed to be maintained. Vide order dated 23.05.2025, this Tribunal directed the auction purchaser not to create any third-party interest and also not to throw out the articles. The Applicant again filed MA No.118/2025 in MA No.107/2025 in Misc. Appeal No.63/2024 for modification of the order dated 08.04.2025 to the extent that the Bank had already taken the possession. This order was modified on 04.06.2025. It is also stated that the account of the Applicant and other group accounts of M/s Himachal Gas and Petroleum Company and Mridul Sharma were closed on 05.06.2025 after adjusting the sale proceeds of the property, and the balance amount was credited to their current account vide letter dated 06.06.2025. It is also stated that the Applicant has challenged the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by this Tribunal before the DRAT, and the said appeal is pending.

¶47

Mr. Yogesh Kumar, counsel for the auction purchaser, endorsed the contentions of the Bank and submitted that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶48

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶49

¶50

SA No.177 of 2023

¶51

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶52

The Applicant has alleged that the Bank did not intimate him at any time before declaring the account NPA that his account was overdue. However, this fact has been denied by the Bank, and the Bank has placed on the record copies of emails dated 08.02.2022, 09.03.2022, 21.03.2022, and 05.06.2022, along with a copy of the letter dated 11.10.2022; 13.11.2022 asking the Applicant to get the credit limit renewed and submit the papers for the same. Further, Bank has placed on the record a copy of letter dated 12.01.2023, and again a copy of letter dated 06.02.2023. In all these letters, the Bank asked the Applicant to clear the overdue amount in different accounts and get the accounts regularized. Bank also intimated that in case the Applicant would not make the payment, the account would be classified as NPA. Admittedly, Applicant did not make the payment, and on 28.02.2023, Bank declared the account NPA and on 02.03.2023, it issued the notice under Section 13(2). Bank has also placed on record a copy of the objections filed by the Applicant on 25.04.2023, sent by one Mr. Manmeet Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of the Applicant. I have perused the objections filed by the Applicant. The objections are general in nature and do not contain any serious issues. It is also mentioned in the objections that there has not been any willful default on the part of the Applicant. Naturally, the Bank, while disposing of the objections on 02.05.2023, rejected the same. I have also perused the notice under Section 13(2) dated 02.03.2023, which clearly states the amount due from the Applicant and the property over which the security interest was created by the Applicant. Be that as it may it was argued by the counsel for the Applicant that the GECL-I and GECL-II accounts cannot be declared NPA as they are backed by Government guarantees. However, I am of the considered view that there is no force in the same. The mere circumstance that GECL loans are backed by a Government guarantee does not mean that the Applicant is not

¶53

¶54

SA No.177 of 2023

¶55

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶56

liable to pay the same. Applicant has again alleged that the Bank has charged Rs.37.00 lacs during the moratorium period as penal interest. I have perused the statement of account for the period from March 2020 to August 2022. Only a nominal sum has been debited as penal interest. It was also argued that the Applicant is an MSME unit and the Bank should have restructured the loan. However, neither in the Applicant’s objections nor otherwise, has the Applicant placed on record any material to show that a request for restructuring was made. I also do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the Applicant that the Bank should have sold the petrol pump instead of selling the hotel. It is the choice of the secured creditor as to which property is to be sold. Moreover, it has not been shown that the market value of the petrol pump was more than the amount due to the Bank.

¶57

Apart from this, Applicant has also challenged the auction. At the outset, this deserves to be mentioned that Applicant admits that the sale notice was duly served upon him. As mentioned earlier, this case was taken up on 09.02.2024, and this Tribunal ordered that the Bank would not confirm the auction. On 12.02.2024, the Applicant sought 15 days’ time to deposit Rs.1.50 crores. Despite the fact that the Applicant had himself undertaken to deposit Rs.1.50 crores within 15 days, the Applicant filed an appeal against the order dated 12.02.2024 before the Hon’ble DRAT. Admittedly, the Applicant did not deposit Rs.1.50 crores as undertaken by him on 12.02.2024. Again, on 21.06.2024, Bank had intimated the particulars of the auction purchasers to the Applicant. However, the Applicant did not challenge the auction. Again, on 08.04.2025, Applicant made a statement before the Hon’ble DRAT that he would challenge the auction before the DRT. The order of DRAT dated 08.04.2025 is very specific that the Applicant would move necessary application within 15

¶58

¶59

SA No.177 of 2023

¶60

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶61

days before the DRT. However, the Applicant did not move the application before the DRT challenging the auction. It was argued by the counsel for the Applicant that since the order dated 08.04.2025 was not uploaded till 06.05.2025, she could not move the application. I am of the considered view, that this plea is not available to the Applicant. The order dated 08.04.2025 was passed in the presence of the counsel for the Applicant. Be that as it may, despite having the particulars of the auction purchasers, Applicant filed the amended SA before this Tribunal on 09.05.2025. However, the Applicant did not move an application for amendment of SA on 09.05.2025. On 15.05.2025, Applicant moved an application for amendment of SA, which was allowed by this Tribunal on 16.05.2025, subject to all just grounds that may be available to the parties. On the other hand, the auction was conducted on 12.02.2024. On 12.02.2024, this Tribunal had restrained the Bank from confirming the auction for 15 days, provided the Applicant deposits Rs.1.50 crores. However, as mentioned earlier, the Applicant did not deposit Rs.1.50 crores. The contention of the Applicant is that the auction purchasers deposited the balance sale consideration on 23.05.2024, after a period of 90 days from the date of auction, which was held on 12.02.2024. However, I am of the considered view, that there is no force in the contention of the Applicant. As mentioned earlier, vide order dated 12.02.2024, the Bank was restrained from confirming the auction for 15 days from 12.02.2024. This means that the auction was finally confirmed by the Bank on 27.02.2024. Bank has produced on record letters by the auction purchasers dated 26.02.2024 and 27.02.2024 requesting extension of time, which was allowed by the Bank on 05.03.2024. Ultimately, the auction purchasers deposited the balance sale consideration on 23.05.2024, and the Bank issued the sale certificate in their favor on that very day. I am of the considered view, that the case of

¶62

¶63

SA No.177 of 2023

¶64

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶65

the Applicant is neither here nor there. The Applicant did not service the account properly. Despite repeated letters by the Bank to the Applicant to regularize the account, the Applicant failed to deposit the dues, and the Bank put up the property for auction on a number of occasions. The auction was finally fixed up for 12.02.2024. I have also perused the auction proceedings, which show that there were two bidders for this property. Whereas the reserve price was fixed at Rs.9,41,87,000/-, after competitive bidding, the Bank was able to sell the property for Rs. 10,61,37,000/-. I do not find any illegality in the same. I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in the SA and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶66

All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly. Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶67

Pronounced in open court Dated: 29.04.2026 PANKAJ

¶68

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶69

The Trance v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Trance v. Punjab and Sind Bank

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

Uco Bank versus Manpreet Kumar

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Prasad Broom Stick Co. and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Muni Royal

Nawal Singh Verma versus Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms Shiddi Sai Traders Prop Sujata Ghatraj and Anr.

M/S Linsa Medicals versus State Bank of India