Allowed

Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Canara Bank

DRT11 Feb 2026SA/28/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's security interest application challenging the bank's forfeiture of 25% of the bid amount. It held the bank failed its duty to disclose pending litigations and prohibition orders preventing registration. Consequently, the bank was directed to refund the forfeited amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned forfeiture letter is set aside and the bank is directed to refund Rs. 74,25,000 with 6% p.a. interest.

Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1 1 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

sA.No.28,/2c23

¶4

Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Amarnath, aged 52 years, Occ;business, R I o l-2-298, Amarnath Kunj, Street No.7, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶5

. . . Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

l.Canara Bank

¶8

Rep. by its Authorized officer ARM Brnch,Grond floor, Circle Of{ice Building, Beside Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-500 026

¶9

Mls Dinesh Gold

¶10

Rep. by its Managing partner

¶11

M/s Dinesh Jewellers Rep. by its managing partner

¶12

Both rep. by its Managing partner Mr.Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o late Mahesh Chand Agarwal, R/o Plot No.56, Sagar Society, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for 7st Respondent bank Respondents No Reserued 02.02.2025 I 1 .O2.2026 1.02.2026

¶15

M/s R.R. Assocrales Sn A. V.S.S.Prasad Exparte

¶16

SA.No.28/2023

¶17

:ORDER:

¶18

This Securitization application is filed by the Applicant u/s.17 of the

¶19

SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 challenging the impugned Letter/e Mail dt.30.01.2023 issued by the 1"t Respondent Bank forfeiting the amount of Rs.74,25,000/- being 25o/o of the bid amount paid by the Applicant in respect of the schedule property pursuant to the auction conduced on 14.t2.2022.

¶20

The averments made in the application, in brief, are as under,-

¶21

The lst Respondent Bank published the Sale Notice dt.31.1O.2O22 in respect of the schedule propert5r for conducting auction on 14.I2.2022. The Applicant herein intended to purchase Lot Nos.5&6 of the sale notice and he participated in the auction and became successful bidder in respect of the said properties. On 14.12.2022, the lst Respondent sent a letter stating that steps for confirmation of the sale will be taken only after remittance of 25oh of the amount and subject to the outcome of the SA 3OO I 22 and SA 2961 22 which are pending before the Honble DRT-I, Hyderabad. After receipt of 2}o/o of the bid mount, the lst Respondent bank issued conditional sale confirmation letter dt.l7.Ol.2023 and on issuance of letter dt.23 .Ot.2023 by the Applicant requesting to refund 25Vo of the bid amount as there are several litigations and also prohibition before the Registration office for registration ofthe said property, the 1st Respondent Bank issued l,etter dt.30.01.2023 through mail stating that if the balance amount of 7 Syo of bid amount is not being paid on or before 31.01.2023, the amount already deposited towards 25%o of the bid amount shall be forfeited. ' .npplicant^{paid 25,,/o of the bid amountin respect of Item No.s of the} dfrE[Sfq.Ntce. The rrlv .lylJu(,curLAppticant rrilha s rr(rlnot deposited uclruslLc(l zoao or 2svo ofthrn e bid Dlcl a lnm ount ri n .,,s^-. - sn -ti\ .;.i., S^{resf$[$Item No.6 of sale notice and hence,10yoEMD paid by the} forfeited by the l"t Respondent Bank. The bid amount for the Sale Notice is Rs.2,97,00,000/;^{11 Fro,ffi:ilfFro,ffi:ilf}

¶22

; 11 Fro,ffi:ilfFro,ffi:ilf
\ts"
\ a-1
<br>

¶23

SA.No,28/2023

¶24

The Applicant came to know that in respect of Lot No.5 of the Sale notice, there is an entry in the prohibitory Register maintained by the concerned SRo and there is no possib ity of registration of the said property. The Applicant came to know about the pendency ofSA 300/22 and sA 296/22 before the Hon'bre DRTJ, Hyderabad and RegularAppeal (Diary No.719 l22l pe.,ding before Hon,ble DRAT, Kolkata only after receipt of the conditional sale confirmation retter issued by the r st Respondent Bank. so, in view ofthe pendency of the sA3ool22 and sA 296 / 22 and also in view of the prohibition for registration of the property i'e. Lot No.S of the sale notice, the Appricant is not wilring to pay z so/o of the bid amount and in view of the above, he is entitled for refund of 25,'/o of the bid amount i.e. Rs.74,25,000/_ paid by him. Hence the SA.

¶25

3' The lst Respondent Bank liled their Reply and the contentions of the lst Respondent Bank, in brief, are as under_

¶26

The Applicant participated in the auction conducted by the 1st Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule propertSr on 14.72.2022 and, after payment of 25o/o of the bid amount, he is going back with his ulterior motives by colluding with the borrowers. As balance z so/o of the bid amount is not paid within the stipulated period, 2so/o of the bid amount paid by the Applicant in respect of the schedule property is forfeited vide letter dt.30.0 1.2023 issued by the rst Respondent Bank. In view of the pendency of sAs 296 I 22 & 3oo I 22, sale was not confirmed in favour of the Applicant. Being successful bidder, the Applicant is expected to pay 7 5%" of the balance amount after receiving the sale confirmation retter dt.17.Or.2023 in pursuance of the sale Notice dt.31.l o.2022 issued by {^{Respondent Bank. As per Rule 9(5)} of Security Interest t) Rules, 2OO2, in default of payment of balance T SVo of tine f^'u* the period mentioned in Sub-Rule (4), deposit of 2So/o .* oTbid be forfeited and the property shall be resold and the 11&r&,,msspl i; shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any q,-,,Uffi for which it may be subsequently sold. Keeping the

¶27

SA.No.28/2023

¶28

property in the Prohibition List is the fraud committed by the borrower without impleading the 1st Respondent Bank as party to I.A.No.543/2020 in O.S.No.105 l2O2O on the frle of lst Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by virtue of Agreement of Sale dt. 18.06.2019 fited by Sri Ravi Kumar Agarwal against Sri Sailesh Kumar Agarwal and others for enforcement of said Agreement of Sale subsequent to the mortgage. The claim of the Applicant being auction purchaser that the property is under Prohibitory Register, is not maintainable and not tenable as the said prohibitory order is not maintainable against the lst Respondent Bank, as the Bank is not made as a party to the said proceedings. The bid of the Applicant against the schedule property was accepted by the Bank on 14.12.2022 and he was directed to remit 21oh of the bid amount including the EMD and sale confirmation letter was given by the 1"t Respondent bank on 77.O1.2O23 confirming the receipt of the 25% of the bid amount and balance amount of Rs.2,22,T5,000/- is due and it shall be deposited on or before 31.01.2023. Thereafter, the Applicant addressed mail dt.23.o1.2023 enclosing the objections which are replied by the 1"t Respondent Bank on 3O.O1.2O23 by sending email. No relief claimed by the Applicant against the email directing the Applicant to deposit balance 7 5o/o of bid amount on or before 30.01.2023, failing which, 25o/o of the bid amount sha11 be forfeited, can be granted as the Applicant is bound to honour the terms and conditions of the sale notice and confirmation letters issued by the l"t Respondent Bank and cannot claim for cancellation of sale and also for refund of 2so/o of the bid amount and hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

4 . Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel for the I st Respondent Bank whereas Respondents No.2&3 were set exparte.

¶30

that arise for consideration are,-

¶31

Applicant is entitled for refund of Rs.74,25,000/him tou-tards 2 5o/o of the bid amount pursuant to the

¶32

sA.No.28/2023

¶33

auction conducted bA tle I't Respond.ent bank on 14.12.2022 in respect of the schedule property?

¶34

ii) To what relief?

¶35

Potnt No.(ilr

¶36

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, and Ld. counser for the 1st Respondent Bank reiterated their respective versions as stated supra.

¶37

The undisputed facts of the case are that the l"t Respondent initiated proceedings against Respondents No.2&3 and others as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2OO2 and ultimately proposed to conduct auction of the schedule property along with other properties on 14.12.2022 by issuing Sale Notice dt.3t.l}.2o22. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Applicant herein participated in the auction held on 14.12.2022 and became successful bidder in respect of Lot No. 5&6 ofthe sale notice. Even though, the Appricant paid. roo/o of the reserve price towards EMD in respect of Lot No.6 of sale notice, subsequently, he failed to pay 2s%o of the bid amount which is incrusive of the EMD and so, the lst Respondent has forfeited the EMD i.e. lovo of the reserve price paid by the Applicant in respect of Lot No.6 of sale notice. In the same auction held on 14 .12.2022, the Applicant became successful bidder in respect of Item No.s of the sare notice which is application schedule property. The bid amount offered by the Applicant in respect of the schedule property is Rs.2,97,00,000/_ and the same was accepted by the 1"t Respondent Bank. There is arso no dispute regarding the fact

¶38

licant was declared as successful bidder in respect of .':'ihd ,^{he paid} 25o/o of the bid amount i.e.Rs.74,25,0o0/_ f the unt. ::1^{11 FEB M} : W*-r#P

¶39

SA.No.28/2023

¶40

After depositing 25Vo of the bid amount, l"t Respondent has issued confirmation letter dt. 17.O1.2023 to the Applicant intimating that sale in favour of him was confirmed but the same is subject to the outcome of the SAs 3OO/22 and 296122 which are pending on the file of DRT-I, Hyderabad and Regular Appeal (Diary No.719 122\ pending on the file of Hon'ble DRAT,Kolkata. Thereafter, the Applicant addressed a letter dt.23 .Ol .2023 to the I^st Respondent requesting the lst Respondent Bank to clear the pending cases in respect of the auctioned property and also intimating that for the first time, he was informed about the pendency of the SAs 3OO 122 &, 296 122 and no information was given to him at the time of participating in the auction about the pendenry of the litigation in respect of the auctioned property. It is also mentioned in the said letter that there are various litigations pending in the civil court in respect of the said property and the schedule property is entered into the Register of Prohibition maintained with the concerned SRO. The Applicant mentioned that since the Bank has not cleared the pending litigation, he is not ready to pay the balance bid amount. As the Applicant has not paid the balance 7 5o/o of the bid amount in view of the pendency of the litigations in respect of the schedule property, the l"t Respondent has issued the impugned Letter/email of forfeiture dt.30.01.2023 informing the Applicant that the Bank will try to take steps for early disposal of the pending SAs and the Bank is ready and willing to register the sale of the property after receipt of 7 5o/o of the bid amount r.e. Rs.2,22,75,O0O I - on or before 31.01.2023 failing which, the Bank will forfeit the amount as per the terms and conditions of the sale and sale confirmation letter.

¶41

Ld. counsel for the Applicant argued that the Applicant was not informed lhe^{pendency of the SAs 296122 &, 3OOl22 in respect of the} pert5r and the Applicant came to know that the schedule entered in the Prohibition Register maintained by the so, there is no possibility of registration of the sale of property and suppressing the said facts, 1st Respondent auction ofthe schedule property and the l"t Respondent

¶42

lA.No.28/2C)23

¶43

bank being secured creditor, is expected to offer unencumbered property to the Applicant and the lst Respondent Bank is also expected to mention the details of the encumbrances in respect of the schedule property as contemplated under Rule g(Z) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. He further argued that the 1st respondent bank is not entitred to forfeit 2so/o of the bid amount paid by the Applicant in view of the discrepancies as mentioned above and so the 1st respondent is liable to refund the said amount.

¶44

10' Learned counsel for the Applicant in support of his contentions reried upon the judgement of Hon'ble High court oJ Andhra pradesh in Mandaaa Krishnrr Chaltanga Vs UCO Bank ln Wp.No.39Og4/2O12 wherein it is held that:

¶45

",fu.11"" the_concept o/ as is uthere is and. as is what rs basrs has tost tts stgnqlcance in th.e anrrent commercial milieu and tLrc principle of caueat uenditor is more on the rise as compsTs6 to tlrc outd.ated. pinc.iple -of cayeat emptor. The Transfer iy nropertg act, 1Bg2 requires the seller to oun upto certain duties'and. ti x iot oi""iii responsible bank to take,an innocent auction purch""., yo, i iai-fu selling to him a tainted. prolertA and theriafier claim protectioi i:!?r^rk f:::jotes^{of buserbeiare.r.tte} "ouit"r_^{afuaautlteaij} tne banK cLearla demonstrates that the bank undeiook no Zxercii whatsoeuer to uerifg and ascertain as to ,that encumbrances attach.ed . to the subject propertA at anA stage. No d.etails are f::ncory,tng oJ anA .efforts hnuing been made bg tle bank, be it oeJore tne regtstratton autho.nties or anA other authoitA at anA stage. Now, it has come to tight that tl.te property in qi.estion is tainted on grounds more th.anine. It falts iitti" tn" y"ti tank lbuet "_r. ":O:,surpisinglg,^{if is also triated as aceilinj surplu" tini'.} tE uurLt Lo r.ne peunoner as the sale was effected uithout r''tt :iff 1x;'#"i-"i,)iii'il,:!,":::i:iff '":;:::jiYiiil yatnng^{actual phgsical} possession thereij and. the bank €{^-6 I.f ' ffi .fri:; ;;;a. ;i.;;i;;;;' ":i;T"r::";;l:fr,tr:;"##":r,itr .ii +, $fi ry the s tdt uto nt man da e .lo t a nf of iali,,oi-^ deliuering ac ual^^ t -,-t ^^^^^^possession of tle pipertg li--^{11 FEB wfisot-d:)hd?r"thesite i9i7*rh.e decisions} of uarious courts I^i. refeierl to sr rr.,r.- ttnrttA ^^-^ ,^ tL^ -:r -. t, r I :l:_X;f lunra^{utould cometo the aid of the petitioner} in this . '".:, - apart.the registration authorities alriady ind.icated to .,nr'.j#^g!Iltj?n?r ",f_Srq:f.^::n"L^{thltthesubjecttand.is} noted as a ceiling"siii;;-;";. :._. ,^{.,...tylreJore, euen} if theg do entertain the sale certificatZ *"i.a Ag iLn

¶46

¶47

SA.No.28/2023

¶48

bank fir registration, it wourd. be subject to this croud and u.tourd not amount to clear conueaance of title. It is therefore ""yiJliri ti. bank made the innocent petitioner a uictim bg'faiti"g to'ini; i;" dirigence, not onrg in-terms of the statutory "ii"^.i7usanraasl Act and the Rules of 20O2, but also in its ou.tn commercial interest. let alone public ilt3res!, -wlen it accepted this propertg "" ";;;;; for^{the toan} sanctioned. bg it. This "ti, i"r.i."tr;;ri i"1i r":,i-+ the bank in sanctioning loans, bg use ,f p;bi;-;;;;;;;;'in,oi strength of seanred assets whici ,re n_ot^-euen worthy A.i.g mortgaged, requires to be d.eprecated. in tlw strongest t"ir". gin* necessailg haue to exercise more care and calttion unite isiig public monies auaitabte rtith them, t. it ,ir"iii" i.iti""i, c'stomers or othentise, tahen sanctioning roans *itn"ii[i"i.""i worse and cannot be permitted. to claim'protection und., outiitea legal pinciples so as io uictimize innoceni auction purcha.sers, such as th.e petitioner. This Court therefore has no hesitation in holdinq that the auction sale held..by t^e A""i,- itn""i";;;;';;;;;:.:, minimum care to ascertain^-ttu "nro^Lronces^{attaching to the} lllfct^pr-opertgand .without^informtng th.e petitioneiir-Ai bidders of the same uitiates the iale pioceeafigs, athfnatiig"in issuance of tlrc sale certifi.cate rahich is'yet to be registered..,

¶49

Ld. counsel also relied on the Judgement of ,,on ble Hlgh Court on Arrqhqbqd in smtRelcha sahu as rICo Bolnk rn wrrt peti*on No.71774/2OlO uthereln it ls held that:

¶50

"For the reasons aforesaid., it is crear that the seanred. creditor does nlt enjog the immunitg in respect of his action if it is not bona fide. Chief manager leuel Officer is chosen because *ftn A"n expeience and maturitg of mind he raill be able to take action uith due care and. caution in uiew of stingent nature of the proui.sion of the Act. But in the instant case, tLte Authorized. Officer, iho *o" th-e Chief manager leuel Officer of the reputed. bank of our country, prior to pubtishing the auction notice did not take care of the enanmbrances ocanrred. in the propertA in question and not mentioned. the said. encumbrances in tlrc propertA in the public notice. Furthermore, when the petitioner being u.rii *": fi.O" .":::ion^purchaser raised the uoice rath.er informed th.e ized Olficer about tLrc said facts did not ad.here its request and refused to his responsibilitg. In these backgrounds, the tr-filed the instant wit petition in the year 20'10 and since 2026 fought for his legitimate ight. Euen othen.uise, petitioner afier the entire bid amount d.id not enjoy tLrc propertA in qtestion ground that electicitg dues and municipaliiy tax dues haue been paid bg the preuious owner. TLrerefoi", *. think it

¶51

1 1 FEB 2026 46$r*7,6 +jrtrTsq

¶52

g.No.28/2029

¶53

appropiate to impose cost upon tle officers, wla haue participated in th.e au ction p ro ce e ding s."

¶54

He also relied on the Judgemen t of Hon bk DRAT, Kolkata in Appeal No.4O/2O27 which is follows:

¶55

"seanred creditor taas under an obrigation to prouid.e deta,ed. information regarding any litigation pending before ang court or Tfibunal. But the same was not prouid.ed_ bg the secured creditor_ Accordinglg, there was uiolation of Rule g(6) of tLe Seatitg Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2)O2.ld.DRT has righttg arriued at a finding. I do not find ang merit in the Appeal. Appeal is tiable to be di"smissed .,,

¶56

Learned counser for the lst Respondent bank argued that the schedule property is entered into the prohibitory list by Iiling collusive suit by the borrowers and the lst respondent bank is not party to the said suit and the said prohibitory orders are issued in respect of schedule property behind the back of the l"t Respondent bank and so the said prohibitory orders are not binding on the lst Respondent bank. He further argued that in view of the non-payment of zsoh of the bid amount after confirmation of sale, the lst Respondent bank, as per Rule 9(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, is entitled to forfeit 2so/o ofthe bid amount paid by the Applicant and the lst Respondent bank is entitled to conduct fresh auction in respect of the schedule propert5r.

¶57

t2. There is no dispute regarding the fact that in the sale notice issued by $ Respondent bank for conducting the auction of the schedure 14.12.2022, there is no mention about the fact that SA Nos. lra 3OO/22 are pending in respect of the schedule property. t{pe of participation of the Applicant in the auction, the lst 1 1 Ff8"ffia.., has not informed the Applicant about the pendency of er litigations in respect of the schedule propert5r. Only for by addressing a letter dated LZ.Ol.2O23, the lst

¶58

S'A.No.28n023

¶59

Respondent bank informed the Applicant about the pendency ofSA Nos. 296122 and 3OOl22 on the lile of this Tribunal and also pendency of Regular Appeal (Diary No.719 122) before Hon'ble DRAT Kolkata apart from the fact that the schedule property is mentioned in the prohibitory register maintained by the Sub Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad. In order to establish that the schedule property is entered in the prohibitory list, the Applicant liled Market Value Assistance letter issued by the Sub Registrar Doodhbowli, Hyderabad wherein it is clearly mentioned that the schedule property is identified as prohibited. So when the schedule property is entered in the prohibitory register maintained by the concerned sub Registrar, the registration of the sale certificate in respect of the schedule property cannot be effected. The Schedule propert5r is entered in the prohibitory register in view of the orders passed by the competent Civil Court i.e. City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OS.No. 105/2020. Whether the 1st Respondent bank is a party to the said suit or not is immaterial because the said court is a competent civil court empowered to pass orders restraining the concerned sub Registrar from registering the property during the pendency of said suit.

¶60

Even though the lst Respondent Bank is aware of the said fact of prohibition in respect to registration of the schedule property, the same is not mentioned in the sale notice dt.3 1 . 1 O.O222 issued by the lst Respondent bank. The terms and conditions of the Sale notice are mentioned in Rule 8 of the Security Interest(Enforcement ) Rules,2oO2 which reads as follows:

¶61

8 Sale of immovable secured assets:

¶62

notice of sale shall be affixed on the conspicuous part of the d.-^-ffit ble property and the authorized officer shall upload the {/* 45c, terms and conditions of the sale, on the web-site of the ', itor, which shall include: [; '1;;(a) th dp-sqription of the immovable property to be sold, including the lrhq f the encumbrances known to the secured creditor; sh,*;'''r'. ':-1r'2') ;:;J-.:t;i-19y,secured debt for recovery of which tJ:e property is to be sold; 10

¶63

SA.No.28/2023

¶64

( c) reserve price of the immovable secured assets below which the property may not be sold;

¶65

(d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed;

¶66

(d) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor;

¶67

(0 any other terms and conditions, which the authorized officer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of the property.

¶68

As per Rule 8(7) (a) of Rules, 2002 there is obligation on the part of the lst Respondent bank, being secured creditor, to inform the general public about the details of the encumbrances on the property which is proposed to be sold' Before the pa]rment of 2s %o of the bid amount, t-l.e applicant was not informed about the pendency of the SAs 296/222 and 3OOl22 and also about the fact that the schedule property is entered in the prohibitory register maintained by the concerned Sub Registrar. The confirmation letter issued by the 1st respondent bank on lZ.Ol.2O23 is not an absolute one and it is only a conditional confirmation subject to the outcome of SAs 296122 and 3OOl22. Issuance of conditional confirmation of sale by the authorized officer of the secured creditor is not contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, and Rules 2002. The secured creditor/authorized officer is expected to sell unencumbered property which is free of litigation. So in the instant case, the 1st Respondent bank has suppressed the fact of pendency of SAs on the file of DRT- I Hyderabad and Regular Appeal No... (Di ary No.T 19 / 2022) on the e of Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata and also about the fact that the schedule is entered in the Prohibitory Register maintained by Sub

¶69

l,* Doodhbowli Hyderabad, in view of the order passed by the Court. So, the ratio laid down by the Hon,bte High Court

¶70

Pradesh, Hon'ble High court of Allahabad and the Hon,ble in the above decisions relied by the Ld. counsel for the

¶71

is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶72

SA.No.28/202j

¶73

So considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the impugned letter /e-mall dated 3o.01 .2023 issued by the l*t respondent bank by forfeiting the amount of 74,2s,000/- paid by the Applicant towards 25o/o of the bid amount in respect of the schedule property is illegal and it is not binding on the Applicant. consequently, the Applicant is entitled for refund of the said amount i.e.Rs .24,2s,oo0/- paid by him.

¶74

t6. So, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that a direction can be given to the lst Respondent bank to refund 21oh of the bid amount deposited by the Applicant with subsequent interest. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Applicant and against the 1st Respondent Bank.

¶75

Point No (iil

¶76

In the result, sA 2812023 is alrowed by setting aside the impugned letter/e mail dt.so.or.2023 issued by the 1st Respondent Bank regarding forfeiture of 2so/o of the bid amount paid by the Applicant in respect of the schedule propert5r pursuant to the auction conducted on 14.12.2022. Accordingly, the 1"t Respondent Bank is hereby directed to refund Rs.74,25 ,ooo / - deposited by the Applicant with the lst Respondent Bank towards 25o/o of the bid amount with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. simple from the date of deposit til the date of payment, which shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.

¶77

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶78

l?':::':::::,';i::::::::2.!,ba.h",, corrected, sigry9d. and pronounced bs me
in the."?Wourt on this the l rn daa'of February, zozo1.
,ffi
sd/-
(c. coPrcrrANDl
M h.r PRESIDING OFFICER
a'tw
r*$&oAraar
.B?t)i- r{{BFA'AO.
72
rfu,**#

Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Canara 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. G. Ravi Kumar @ Gaddam Ravi

State Bank of India versus Mr. Boya Srinivasulu

Canara Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Devi Textiles

Vaishnavi Agarwal versus Canara Bank

M S Dinesh Jewelers versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt. Myadari Ashwini