Allowed

L Gayathri v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT5 Mar 2026SA/378/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the SARFAESI application, finding that the Bank failed to strictly follow statutory procedures regarding the service and publication of the Possession Notice. Consequently, the Possession Notice and the impugned CJM order granting physical possession were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The Possession Notice dated 08.03.2016 and the Impugned CJM Order dated 24.04.2023 granting physical possession were set aside.

L Gayathri versus Karur Vysya Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.378/2023

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI

¶4

DATED THIS 05^th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶6

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶7

SA No. 378/2023

¶8

Mrs.L.Gayathri, W/o.Mr.G.Packiyaraj, Prop :M/s.Gayathri Coco Products, No.46/3, Keelanagatchi Village, Mandapam Union, Ramanathapuram District. …. Applicant

¶9

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Ramanathapuram Branch, Rossary Church Complex, Ramanathapuram - 623 501. ….1^st Defendant Bank

¶11

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. …. 2^nd Defendant

¶12

Appearance of Advocates: Mr. M.Kumar ---Counsel for the Applicant Mr. P.Madhan Alexander ---- Counsel for the 1^st Defendant Bank 2nd Defendant is none other than the Ld. CJM, Kanyakumari District

¶13

This SARFAESI Application was heard in the presence of Counsels for the Applicant and the Defendant Bank and fixed for passing final order before me and upon hearing the arguments of both the Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

Page 1 of 16

SA No.378/2023

O R D E R

1 . This Application has been filed u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the Applicant praying that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 ending up with the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the 2^nd Defendant in Cr.M.P.No. 7822/2022 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which was brought to the knowledge of the Applicant on 09-08-2023 by the Advocate Commissioner Notice pursuance thereof and quash the same and pass such further or other orders which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of these and thus render justice.

¶18

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

¶19

a) The Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is the Proprietrix of M/s. Gayathri Coco Products, and she approached the 1^st Defendant Bank and sought a credit facility of ₹15,00,000/- on 13.09.2012 for her business development. Considering the request made by the Applicant, the 1^st Defendant Bank sanctioned the above-said credit facility/loan against the property. It is further submitted that apart from the loan documents, the 1^st Defendant obtained signatures from the Applicant, who was kept in the dark as to what purpose they were to be used for.

¶20

b) The Applicant further submits that in order to secure the above-said credit facility of Rs.15,00,000/-, she had executed the necessary security documents in favour of the 1^st Defendant. It is further submitted that the Applicant’s husband had mortgaged his land (agricultural land) and created an equitable mortgage over the property described in the Schedule hereunder. It is emphatically

¶21

Page 2 of 16

¶22

SA No.378/2023

¶23

submitted that the lands thus mortgaged by the Applicant in favour of the 1^st Defendant are agricultural lands to the knowledge and admission of the Defendant Bank. It is submitted that the Applicant’s husband had executed the MODT dated 13.09.2012 for a sum of Rs.15.00 Lakhs in favour of the 1^st Defendant Bank.

¶24

c) The Applicant submits that she had been regularly paying the loan dues as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the sanction letter. It is further submitted that due to her business loss, the Applicant could not repay the loan dues as agreed. However, she never allowed her account to become a Non-Performing Asset on 02.04.2014.

¶25

d) It is further submitted that while the facts are as stated above, all of a sudden the 1^st Defendant had published the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act against the agricultural land and directed the Applicant to pay the loan amount with subsequent interest and costs. The Applicant was informed by her friends that the Bank had published the Demand Notice. The Applicant therefore approached the 1^st Defendant and requested that she was ready to pay the irregular payments and also requested to renew/restructure her loan account. The authorized officer also gave assurance to the Applicant that they would forward the Applicant’s genuine request to the higher authority for necessary approval. It is further submitted that before effecting publication in the newspaper, the Bank was required to send the Demand Notice to the Applicant herein. In case the authorized officer thought that the Applicant had evaded receipt of the Demand Notice, then he could effect publication of the Demand Notice in two leading newspapers. However, the Bank, without serving the Demand Notice, straightaway published the Demand Notice against the Applicant, which is in violation of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶26

Page 3 of 16

¶27

SA No.378/2023

¶28

e) It is submitted that the Authorized Officer gave an assurance to the Applicant that the Bank would not take any coercive action against the secured assets. It is pertinent to note that instead of restructuring the said loan, the 1^st Defendant has declared the Applicant’s loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) against the RBI norms and issued a Demand Notice under the SARFAESI Act.

¶29

f) It is submitted that all of a sudden, the 1^st Defendant has issued a Possession Notice dated 08.03.2016 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act demanding a sum of Rs.62,46,069/-. The said Possession Notice was not affixed on a conspicuous part of the mortgaged property, and the same was not published in two leading newspapers within 7 days from the date of the Possession Notice, as required under the provisions of the Act and the Rules governing possession notices.

¶30

g) The Applicant submit that they came to know that the 1^st Defendant filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the 2nd Defendant to take physical possession of the secured assets through an Advocate Commissioner. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram was pleased to allow the said Cr. M.P. No. 7822/2022 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by its order dated 24.04.2023. Hence this SARFAESI application is filed by the Applicant before this Hon’ble Tribunal among the followings grounds.

¶31

The impugned order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the 2nd Defendant under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and thereafter the notice dated 09.08.2023 issued by the Advocate Commissioner, which was duly served on the Applicant, together with all measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act, are arbitrary in nature, illegal, contrary to

¶32

Page 4 of 16

¶33

SA No.378/2023

¶34

law, and wanting in weight of evidence, etc., and thus liable to be set aside.

¶35

It is submitted that the 1^st Defendant failed to file affidavit before the 2^nd Defendant.

¶36

It is submitted that the Bank suppressed the entire facts before the 1^st Defendant and obtained the impugned action of the 1^st Defendant in obtaining the order dated 24.04.2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, seeking to proceed against the agricultural land claimed to be the secured assets, which is contrary to law, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of the principles of natural justice, also a colourable exercise of power, and the measures had been taken in unpredictable manners.

¶37

Wrongful Classification of NPA: The Defendant wrongly classified the Applicant’ account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The 1^st Defendant has not followed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines while classifying the account as NPA. Further, the Defendant ought to have seen that the classification of the Applicant’s loan account as NPA during the COVID-19 lockdown period was illegal, especially when the Applicant had paid the loan dues up to the intervention of the COVID-19 pandemic.

¶38

It is submitted that the Authorized Officer is a quasi-judicial authority under the Act and hence the Authorized Officer’s name must be mentioned in the sale notice.

¶39

Statement of account not furnished: It is submitted that the Applicant further alleges that the 1^st Defendant Bank has not furnished the complete statement of account, as the details of certain credits to the account are not reflected. Hence, the 1^st Defendant

¶40

Page 5 of 16

¶41

SA No.378/2023

¶42

Bank has to be directed to furnish the complete statement of accounts.

¶43

The interest levied by the 1^st Defendant Bank is against the principles laid down in the Reserve Bank of India guideline rules.

¶44

The Defendant Bank has taken action under the SARFAESI Act against the agricultural lands, which are exempted under the SARFAESI Act.

¶45

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶46

All that piece and parcel of the property situated at Ramanathapuram Registration District, Ramanathapuram District and Taluk, SRO Vellipatinam Nagatchi Gropu, Keelangachi Village, Patta No.1327, Survey No.46/3A1 measuring to an extent of 60 Cent.

¶47

Four Boundaries:

¶48

North : Punja Land of SeethalaxmiE

¶49

East : South North Cart Path

¶50

South : Punja Land of Selvakumar and T.Rajendran

¶51

West : South North Path Leading to Nagatchiayamman Temple

¶52

The Applicant has submitted the following List of documents in support of her claim in the SA :-

¶53

S.No.	Date	Description of Documents
1.	24.04.2023	Order passed by 2^ndDefendant U/s.14 of the
		SARFAESI Act
2.	09.08.2023	Notice issued by Advocate Commissioner to Applicant.

¶54

Page 6 of 16

¶55

SA No.378/2023

¶56

3 . On the other hand, the Counsel for the 1^st Defendant Bank appeared before this Tribunal and filed a Vakalatnama, Reply Statement and Typeset in which he has submitted that the Defendant Bank denies all the allegations and averments made in the above appeal that the claim of the Applicant is false & frivolous & baseless and she is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the SARFAESI Application. Hence, the SARFAESI Application has to be dismissed inlimine. Save those that are here-in-after expressly admitted all other allegations mentioned in the SARFAESI Application are denied as absolutely false & totally misleading and the Applicant is put to strict proof of every one of the said allegations.

¶57

a) The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the Applicant, under the heading “Facts of the Case,” has categorically admitted the borrowal of the loan, the execution of loan documents, the creation of the mortgage, the default in payment, and the receipt of the SARFAESI notices in her SARFAESI Application. The 1^st Defendant Bank does not admit that all the allegations under the heading “Facts of the Case” are true and correct. The Applicant is put to strict proof of each of the said allegations by valid and acceptable evidence. Many of the allegations are unwarranted insofar as the matter in issue is concerned.

¶58

b) The 1^st Defendant Bank strongly and vehemently denies the allegations in Paras 1 and 2 under the heading “Grounds” , insofar as they state that the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the subsequent appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and issuance of notice by the said Commissioner were arbitrary in nature, illegal, contrary to law, or that the 1^st Defendant Bank failed to follow the procedures as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rules. Such allegations are denied as absolutely false, totally misleading and highly unsustainable. Further, the 1^st Defendant Bank

¶59

Page 7 of 16

¶60

SA No.378/2023

¶61

submits that the initiation of recovery measures, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the subsequent issuance of notice by the said Commissioner were neither arbitrary in nature, nor illegal, nor contrary to law. The 1^st Defendant Bank has followed all the procedures as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

¶62

c) The 1^st Defendant Bank strongly and vehemently denies the allegations in Paras 3, 4 and 7 under the heading “Grounds” stating that the Bank failed to file the necessary affidavits before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and that the Bank, with suppression of facts, obtained an order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate in order to proceed with recovery measures against the property alleged to be agricultural in nature, and that the initiation of recovery measures against such agricultural property was contrary to law and unreasonable. These allegations are denied as absolutely false, totally misleading and highly unsustainable. The 1^st Defendant Bank has filed all necessary affidavits without suppression of facts to obtain the order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and on the basis of the proper petition and affidavits filed, the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order to take physical possession of the property. The allegation of the Applicant with regard to agricultural property is nothing but a tissue of falsehood and an afterthought. Further, the Applicant has failed to produce any documents to show that the mortgaged property is agricultural in nature.

¶63

d) The 1st Defendant Bank strongly and vehemently denies the allegations in Para-4 under the heading “Grounds” to the extent they state that the classification of the Applicant’s

¶64

Page 8 of 16

¶65

SA No.378/2023

¶66

account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the Defendant Bank was not in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Such allegations are denied as absolutely false, totally misleading, and highly unsustainable. The 1st Defendant Bank states that the classification of the Applicant’s account as NPA was carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable RBI guidelines.

¶67

e) The 1^st Defendant Bank strongly and vehemently denies the allegations in Paras 5 and 6 under the heading “Grounds”, to the extent they state that the Defendant Bank failed to issue a demand notice, failed to affix the possession notice on a conspicuous part of the property, and failed to publish the Possession Notice in two leading newspapers. Such allegations are denied as absolutely false, totally misleading, and highly unsustainable and submits that the 1^st Defendant Bank issued the Demand Notice to the Applicant, affixed the Possession Notice on a conspicuous part of the property and published the same in two leading newspapers.

¶68

f) The 1^st Defendant Bank strongly and vehemently denies the allegations in Paras 8 and 9 under the heading “Grounds” stating that the Defendant Bank failed to register the transaction with regard to the creation of mortgage with the Central Registry as absolutely false, totally misleading and highly unsustainable, and submits that the Defendant Bank has registered the transaction with regard to the creation of security interest in the Central Registry as per Section 20 of the SARFAESI Act. The allegation with regard to the sale notice is unwarranted so far as the matter-in-issue is concerned.

¶69

Page 9 of 16

¶70

SA No.378/2023

¶71

g) The 1^st Defendant Bank strongly and vehemently denies the allegations in Paras 10 and 11 under the heading “Grounds” stating that the Defendant Bank obtained various signatures in pre-filled forms from the Applicant, failed to produce the statement of account to the Applicant, and that most of the credits made by the Applicant were not reflected in the statement of account as absolutely false, totally misleading and highly unsustainable, and submits that had the Applicant truly been prejudiced with regard to signing pre-filled papers, he ought to have made a representation in writing at the time of sanction of the loan itself or even before the initiation of recovery measures, and that the allegation regarding pre-filled forms is nothing but an afterthought. The Defendant Bank furnished the statement of account to the Applicant “as and when” and “then and there” requested by her, and has appropriated all amounts paid by the Applicant into the concerned loan account.

¶72

h) The 1st Defendant Bank strongly and vehemently denies the allegations in Paras 12 and 13 under the heading “Grounds” stating that the Defendant Bank charged interest contrary to the principles laid down in RBI guidelines and that the Applicant has never created any mortgage but the Defendant Bank is initiating recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act as absolutely false, totally misleading and unsustainable, and submits that the Defendant Bank charged interest as per the agreed contractual terms in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RBI, and that the Applicant has created a valid mortgage in favour of the Defendant Bank, which enables the Defendant Bank to proceed with the recovery measures against the mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act.

¶73

Page 10 of 16

¶74

SA No.378/2023

¶75

i) The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that it had issued Demand Notice and the same was also duly served on the Applicant.

¶76

j) The 1^st Defendant Bank begs to submit that it has taken symbolic possession of the property and issued the Possession Notice, and that the Possession Notice was duly served on the Applicant, affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and published both in a Tamil daily and in an English daily.

¶77

k) The 1st Defendant Bank submits that the Applicant has not sent any reply to the Section 13(2) Demand Notice, and that non-sending of a reply to the Section 13(2) Demand Notice was fatal to their case.

¶78

l) The 1st Defendant Bank submit that there is no procedural irregularity on the part of the Defendant Bank in issuing the demand notice, taking possession, issuing the possession notice, issuing the sale notice, bringing the property for sale and obtaining the order in the Section 14 application under the SARFAESI Act and Rules, and that the alleged procedural irregularities mentioned in the SARFAESI Application are not factually or legally correct, and that the Defendant Bank has issued the demand notice, possession notice and sale notice only as per the provisions and procedures of the SARFAESI Act and Rules. Hence, if the CJM order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is set aside, the Defendant Bank will be put to untold hardships and irreparable loss and injury, on the other hand no prejudice will be caused to the Applicant, and the balance of convenience is only in favour of the Defendant Bank.

¶79

Page 11 of 16

¶80

SA No.378/2023

¶81

m) The 1^st Defendant Bank submit that the Applicant is a willful and chronic defaulter; has willfully, wantonly and deliberately failed to repay the loan amount despite having sufficient means to do so, and that the main intention of the Applicant is only to drag on the proceedings without making any payment and to defeat, delay and defraud the valuable rights of the 1^st Defendant Bank. The Applicant is liable to pay the amounts mentioned in the SARFAESI notices with subsequent interest and costs.

¶82

Hence, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above Application with exemplary cost and thus render justice.

¶83

Typed set of Papers filed by the 1^st Defendant Bank on 18.06.2024

¶84

S.No.	Date	Particulars
1.	18.12.2015	Demand Notice with AD cards.
2.	08.03.2016	Possession Notice with AD cards.
3.	13.03.2016	Paper Publication of Possession Notice dated 08.03.2016 in English Daily
4.	13.03.2016	Paper Publication of Possession Notice dated 08.03.2016 in Tamil Daily
5.	****	Photographyshowingaffixture of Possession Notice
6.	24.04.2023	Possession Notice published in Tamil “Dina Mani” and English "New Indian Express" Newspapers
7.	****	Statement of Accounts

¶85

4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:-

¶86

I. Whether the Applicant has been able to prove his case in his favour?

¶87

II. Whether the Applicant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

¶88

5 . Having heard the parties and after going through all the documents on record, this Tribunal finds that there is no dispute regarding the

¶89

Page 12 of 16

¶90

SA No.378/2023

¶91

availment of a Cash Credit Facility by the Applicant. To secure the said credit facility of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only), the Applicant’s husband had mortgaged his property (agricultural land). Initially, she was very prompt in repaying the loan amount; however, due to business losses, she could not pay some of the loan dues as agreed, and as a result, her account became an NPA on 02.04.2014.

¶92

Thereafter, the Defendant Bank issued the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 18.12.2015 to the borrower and the Applicant by registered post with acknowledgement card. I also perused the documents filed by the Defendant Bank. The Bank has produced a photocopy of the Demand Notice along with the postal acknowledgment (AD) cards as proof of service on the Applicant, which are annexed at pages 01 to 04 of the Bank’s typed set of papers. The AD cards indicate that the notice was received and signed by another person. In her averments, the Applicant has contended that the Bank did not serve the Demand Notice dated 18.12.2015, and instead, the Bank proceeded to publish the said Notice without proper service.

¶93

I also find that the Defendants issued a Possession Notice dated 08.03.2016, and have filed in the typed set the AD cards, paper publication, and photo affixture of the Possession Notice (pages 05 to 10 of the Defendants’ common typed set of papers). The Bank has additionally filed a xerox copy of the Possession Notice and the AD cards evidencing that the copy of the Possession Notice was sent to the Applicant (pages 06 to 07 of the typed set of papers). The AD cards indicate that the notice was received and signed by a person other than the Applicant. Moreover, in the filed xerox copy of paper publication, the name of the newspaper, date, and place are not mentioned. Further, in the affixture of the Possession Notice (Xerox copy) dated 08.03.2016, no details of the date or place are shown in the evidence. Since there are irregularities in the documents filed by the

¶94

Page 13 of 16

¶95

SA No.378/2023

¶96

Defendant Bank regarding the paper publication and photo affixture of the Possession Notice, this Possession Notice is not sustainable in view of law. The Defendant Bank has not filed the original documents despite the direction. The Rule 8(1) & (2) of Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002, clearly says that

¶97

“8. Sale of immovable secured assets.

¶98

(1) Where the secured asset is an immovable property, the authorized officer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by delivering a possession notice prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix IV to these rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property.

¶99

(2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be published, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven day from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspaper, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality , by the authorized officer.”

¶100

Thereafter, the Defendant Bank had obtained the Impugned Chief Judicial Magistrate Order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the 2^nd Defendant for taking Physical Possession of the property in Cr.M.P.No.7822/2022. But the Applicant was unaware of the said Order. However, the Applicant received the Advocate Commissioner notice on 09.08.2023 for taking Physical Possession on 25.08.2023, Challenging the same, the Applicant filed this SARFAESI Application. In this case, it has already been observed that the bank has not followed the procedures strictly in issuance of Possession Notice. Hence the Order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the property is also not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶101

I also find that during the pendency of the case, this Tribunal passed a conditional stay order dated 24.08.2023, directing the Applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.18,74,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Seventy-Four Thousand Only) in two equal instalments. The Applicant has complied with the terms of the conditional order and thereby demonstrated her bonafides.

¶102

Page 14 of 16

¶103

SA No.378/2023

¶104

In view of the above discussion, I find that the Defendant Bank has proceeded under the SARFAESI Act and rules for recovery of money from the Applicant but the Defendant has not followed the procedure as mentioned in the SARFAESI Act & Rules strictly. Moreover, the Applicant is no doubt being defaulter is liable to pay the loan amount to the Defendant Bank and the Bank has been given ample power to recover the outstanding loan amount from the borrower by invoking the SARFAESI Act and without the intervention of any Court. But, it shall not allow the Bank to sell the property of the Applicant without following the due process of law strictly, because property is the constitutional right of an individual and hence, Bank cannot sell the property without following the mandatory provisions of Act & Rules. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Defendant Bank has not followed the due procedures for recovery of the loan amount under SARFAESI Act. As such, I find merit in the above SARFAESI Application. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the Applicant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for in SA No. 378/2023.

¶105

In the result,

¶106

(a) SA No. 378/2023 is allowed. The Possession Notice dated 08.03.2016 issued by the Defendant Bank on the basis of Demand Notice dated 18.12.2015 is hereby set aside.

¶107

(b) The Impugned Order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Ld. CJM, Ramanathapuram in Crl.MP.No. 7822/2022 is also hereby set aside.

¶108

(c) All the expenditures incurred in issuance of Demand Notice dated 18.12.2015 & Possession Notice dated 08.03.2016 and the Impugned Order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Ld. CJM, Ramanathapuram in Crl.MP.No. 7822/2022 shall not be included in the loan account of the Applicant.

¶109

Page 15 of 16

¶110

SA No.378/2023

¶111

(d) The Defendant Bank is at liberty to initiate fresh action against the Applicant for recovery of loan amount following strictly the SARFAESI Acts & Rules.

¶112

Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of. No costs.

¶113

Dictated to MTS (KK), taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 05^th March, 2026.

¶114

Sd/- (SEEMA SINHA)

¶115

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶116

Uploaded on 13.03.2026

¶117

Page 16 of 16

L Gayathri v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L Gayathri v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Ravikumar versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited

Waldemar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Raja Rajeswari Marriage Hall versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

P Senthil Kumar versus Bank of Baroda

Lenin Rajasehar versus Recovery Officer II

T Neelavathi versus State Bank of India