Dismissed

Anoushka Commodities P Ltd. v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

DRT20 Apr 2026SA/480/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the securitization application challenging an auction sale of mortgaged property and machinery by a bank. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the sale notice and auction process, noting the successful sale to third parties and the applicant's failure to comply with OTS terms or exercise redemption rights, holding the applicant as a 'fence sitter'.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice and auction proceedings held valid; applicant's application dismissed; interim orders if any vacated.

Anoushka Commodities P Ltd. versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 20^th day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 480 of 2022

¶8

Anoushka Commodities, Rep by its Director Mrs.MamtaDaga, 281/4, 16 th KM Mile Stone, Thanipoondi, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur-601 202. ….Applicant -Vs-

¶9

Catholic Syrian Bank, Mount Road Branch, Represented by its Assistant General Manager 7th Floor, Rani Seethai hall, No.603, Annna Salai, Chennai-600006. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.K.M. Suresh, Adhitya. D,

¶12

M. Pugazhanthi, R. Kamalesh.

¶13

Counsel for respondent : M/s. S.R. Sumathy

¶14

ORDER ON SA 480/2022

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 19.11.2022 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short

¶16

the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶17

The applicant has challenged the Sale held on 25.11.2022 pursuant to E-Auction Sale Notice dated 19.10.2022 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.4,93,61,555.43/-

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

The applicant availed credit facilities of Rs.4 Crores as Cash Credit and Rs.1 Crore as machinery loan, repayable at 13.40% per annum [floating rate of interest). The loan is secured by mortgage of the land and factory building measuring 4.41 Acres along with 41656 Sq.ft., of building in favor of the respondent bank. The Directors of the Applicant had also executed personal guarantees towards the repayment of the monies borrowed by the Applicant Company.

¶22

3.1 The Applicant Company is classified as a women entrepreneur which gets support from the government and statutory department and the major shareholder is Mrs. Mamta Daga and Mrs. Sheetal Daga, jointly owning 73% shares.

¶23

3.2 The Applicant Company could not service the debt due to poor market conditions, committed default in the repayment of the loans and the Respondent Bank had classified the account as NPA on 22.01.2020.

¶24

3.3 It is submitted that the Respondent bank had renewed the credit facilities to the extent of Rs.4.72 Crores and charged processing fee to the tune of Rs.4,72,000/-which was debited from the applicant's account on 27.11.2019. The applicant requested the Respondent bank to reverse the full processing fee of Rs.4,72,000/- vide email dated 30.11.2019 and requested the bank to charge not more than 0.5% as processing fee.

¶25

3.4 The Respondent bank reversed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards processing fee and a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards GST on processing fee on

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

03.12.2019 leaving a sum of Rs.2,36,000/- as the processing fee charge at the rate of 0.5% on the total renewed amount of Rs.4.72 Crores.

¶30

3.5 Thereafter the Respondent bank had issued a recall notice calling upon the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs.4.86 Crores approximately. The Applicant vide letter dated 20.03.2020 informed the bank about its financial difficulties, despite the same, the Respondent bank had issued Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 20.04.2020 under the SARFAESI Act, calling upon the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs.4.91 Crores within a period of 60 days failing which the Applicant was informed that further proceedings will be initiated.

¶31

3.6 The respondent bank in the possession notice dated 29.07.2020 states to have issued S.13(2) notice on 07.04.2020, which is not served, instead was served with a letter dated 20.04.2020 under S.13(2) of SARFAESI Act and another notice on 12.08.2020 stating that the Sec.13(4) notice dated 29.07.2020 is recalled.

¶32

3.7 Thereafter, the respondent bank had issued sale notice on 29.09.2020 bringing the mortgaged land for sale with reserve price of Rs.6.02 Crores seeking to recover a sum of Rs.4.29 Crores in Cash Credit Account and a sum of Rs.92.88 lakhs in machinery account as on 29.09.2020.

¶33

3.8 The Sale Notice dated 29.09.2020 was challenged in S.A.No.158 of 2020 before this Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2020 granted an order of interim stay on the condition that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid on or before 10.11.2020 (before 11.20 A.M.) and

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

a further sum of Rs.15,00,000/- within two weeks and a further sum of Rs.25,00,000/- within four weeks and a further sum of Rs.50,00,000/within the next four weeks. However, the Applicant could not comply with the interim order, as there were no bidders the auction could not fructify.

¶38

3.9 Subsequently, the Applicant entered into OTS proposal on 21.10.2021 to settle for a sum of Rs.5.50 Crores, out of which Rs.2 Crores will be paid on sanction and the balance Rs.3.50 Crores would be paid in 36 equated monthly installments. The Respondent Bank vide letter dated 26.11.2021 accepted the OTS offer and confirmed the receipt of Rs.2 Crores.

¶39

3.10 However, the Applicant owing to poor market conditions and lack of liquidity could not remit the equated monthly installments from February 2022, but could remit a sum of Rs.2 Crores and failed to remit the balance. The Applicant has invested a sum of Rs.1.50 Crores in installing/refurbishing machineries.

¶40

3.11 The respondent had issued present sale notice dated 19.10.2022, which is impugned contending that the reserve price of the property and the machineries are fixed separately where as in the earlier sale notice dated 29.09.2020 provided for a joint reserve price of Rs.6,02,59,000/-. In the instant sale notice the reserve price of the property is Rs.3 Crores for Slot. No. 1, which is the immovable property and Rs.1.50 Crores for Slot No.2, which is the machineries.

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

3.12 However, the market value of the property will be not less than Rs.10 Crores and the Respondent bank sanctioned the loan, after the valuing the land and building by a registered valuer and the report dated 08.12.2018 states that the guideline value of the land and building is Rs.6,17,73,000/and the market value is Rs.9,85,08,000/-.

¶45

3.13 It is seen that the reserve price fixed by the Respondent bank is even lesser than the guideline value as per the Respondent appointed property valuer. The auction notice is published on 20-10-2022 and the property is brought for sale through auction on 25-11-2022.

¶46

3.14 The impugned notice is liable to be set aside since the value of the property is considerably less than the guideline and the market value and hence violative of the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, and the lands and the factory building are located at Gummidipoondi Industrial zone which is prime industrial property that would fetch crores of rupees. The market value of the land and building put together would at least be double of the reserve price.

¶47

3.15 The Respondent bank has wrongly classified the applicant as a NPA as on 22.01.2020 which is erroneous as the credit facilities were renewed on 27.11.2019 towards which processing fee was charged.

¶48

3.16 It is further submitted that the credit facilities are renewed on 27.11.2019 and should the applicant commit default that the bank has to at least wait for 3 months before classifying the applicant as NPA. However,

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

the respondent had declared the account as NPA on 22.01.2020 before the expiry of three months/90 days from 27.11.2019.

¶53

3.17 The respondent bank has charged an exorbitant rate of interest at 13.5% on the sanctioned credit facilities, ignoring the fact that the applicant has been registered under the MSME and categorized as Medium Enterprise and a women entrepreneur.

¶54

3.18 The applicant has also approached the respondent seeking under the Distressed Assets fund-sub debt for stressed MSMEs wherein financial assistance to the extent of Rs.75 lakhs or 15% of promoter’s would be extended to the application unit. Hence, the applicant prays to set aside the Sale Notice dated 19.10.2022.

¶55

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶56

The respondent bank has filed the counter inter alia contending that the sale was scheduled on 25.11.2022 and the applicant has approached this Hon’ble Court in the 11^th hour to protract the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank to recover its dues. The applicant is also not prepared to pay any partial amount by way of compliance of conditional order if any passed by this Honble Tribunal. The applicant failed to comply with the conditional order passed in earlier S.A.No.158/2020.

¶57

4.1 It is submitted that respondent Bank sanctioned credit limits to the extent of Rs.400 lakhs by way of cash credit and Rs.100 lakhs by way of machinery loan to the applicant namely M/s Anouskha Commodities Pvt Ltd, represented by its Directors Mr. Sandeep Daga and Mrs. Mamta Daga.

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

M/s Anouskha Commodities Pvt Ltd being the principal borrower, Mr. Sandeep Daga, and Mamta Daga extended their Personal Guarantee for the credit facilities.

¶62

4.2 The Applicant also created mortgage of property being land measuring 4 acres 41 cents situated at Vaniamalli Madura Tanipoondi Village Gummidipundi Taluk, Thiruvallur District and executed registered mortgage of deposit of title deeds dated 28.13.2018 Registered as Doc No. 5509/18 and the machineries in the factory premises of the applicant been hypothecated to the bank.

¶63

4.3 The Applicant failed to repay the installments as per contract and failed to service the interest which resulted in running the loan accounts into irregular and also classified as NPA on 22.01.2020. The respondent bank has charged the processing fee as per its extant guidelines and prescribed norms. Further that the outstanding in the cash credit limits as Rs.4,15,39,888.82/- and machinery loan with a limit of Rs.100 lakhs was Rs.84,54,985.50/- as on 10.02.2020.

¶64

4.4 The Respondent bank issued a recall notice calling upon the applicant to repay a sum of Rs.4,15,29,888.82 and Rs.84,54,985 as on 10.02.2020 but the applicant failed to respond positively. Hence, on 20.04.2020 Respondent Bank caused demand notice U/s.13(2) of SARFAESI Act. Applicant failed to cause any objection. Hence, the respondent Bank issued u/s.13(4) possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The Applicant neither challenged it nor responded positively.

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

4.5 Hence, the loan accounts turned NPA, and the applicant caused a letter requesting for further credit facility under GECL Scheme of Government of India it envisaged the GECL Scheme for the benefit of business enterprise and MSME borrowers. As per the scheme announced by Government of India the those accounts classified as NPA do not qualify for a Loan under the scheme. The loan accounts of the Applicant was classified as NPA as on 22.01.2020, hence not eligible under the scheme.

¶69

4.6 The Respondent Bank has forwarded a detailed reply to the Applicant expressing its inability to consider the Applicant’s request for enhanced working capital, as the operation of the loan accounts are not healthy. Further, through its letter dated 29.06.2020 Respondent Bank has informed that it suspects diversion of funds as the funds borrowed from bank have not been deployed as envisaged originally at the time of sanction of credit limits.

¶70

4.7 Hence, through its letter Respondent Bank clearly informed to the Applicant that as far as the health of the account is concerned, the company maintains a poor record with the bank in terms of non-submission of proper estimates, delay in commencement of commercial operations, inability to secure order from the prospective buyers as stated at various intervals, frequent modification of machinery suppliers, change of project plans, subdued performance from original estimates and projections, unsatisfactory conduct of the account, non-compliance of sanction terms and other irregularities.

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

4.8 The Applicant Company may not become commercially viable and further the scheme is applicable only to those accounts which had been standard as on 31.03.2018. Whereas, the credit facility availed by the company is by the end of 2018 and the Applicant Company deployed the borrowed funds somewhere else contrary to the sanction terms. Thus the Applicant Company is not an eligible borrower under the scheme.

¶75

4.9 The principle of the Distressed Assets Fund- Subordinate debt for stressed MSMEs and credit Guarantee Scheme Subordinate debt is that the lending institution should be confident of the unit becoming commercially viable before extending any benefit under the scheme. The respondent Bank’s Assessment of the Applicant Company fails to qualify.

¶76

4.10 The applicant already challenged the earlier sale notice dated 29.09.2020 in SA.No.158/2020 before Hon’ble DRT-II Chennai. Interim order of stay was granted by Hon’ble DRT-II Chennai with a conditional order that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to be deposited on or before 10.11.2020 and Rs.15,00,000/- within 2 weeks thereafter and order payment of Rs.75,00,000/- within 8 weeks thereafter whereas the applicant failed to comply with the conditional order passed in S.A.No.158/2020 either partially which is admitted by the applicant in para no.6 of this SA. Hon’ble DRT-II also dismissed the SA for default on 29.10.2021 for nonprosecution.

¶77

4.11 Therefore, the applicant filed WP.No.17864/2020 before Hon’ble High Court Madras which was dismissed. The respondent bank entertained the

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

applicant’s request for OTS and sanctioned the OTS to be allowed provided and makes a payment of Rs.5,50,00,000/- for the sake of applicant’s convenience it was also agreed that the above Rs.5,50,00,000/- should be paid and Rs.2 crores – December 2021 (paid by applicant) and the balance amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- should be paid 36 equal EMIs starting from Feb’2022. But the applicant failed to pay a single payment of EMI as agreed till date. Hence the respondent was constrained to proceed further by scheduling e-auction sale of the property on 25.11.2022.

¶82

4.12 It is summited that the first sale was on 10.11.2020 and second sale scheduled by the respondent bank on 25.11.2022. The prospective bidders participated in the e-auction on 25.11.2022 and the sale was successful completing the e-auction sale and declared Mr.Harakh Chand Golecha, Mr.Uttam Chand Golecha, Snehalatha and Surekha as successful purchasers. The entire sale consideration of Rs.3,05,50,000/- was paid by the successful purchasers on 02.12.2022, Sale Certificate was also issued in favour of successful bidders on 02.12.2022 and the possession of the property was also handed over to the auction purchasers and the same was duly acknowledged by the purchasers. Sale certificate was also registered on 05.12.2022 vide Doc.No.7255/2022 before the SRO, Gummidipoondi. Hence 3^rd party interest has been created over the secured asset. The said purchasers were declared as successful bidders for the movable assets on the auction 25.11.2022 and it was sold for Rs.1,52,00,000/-.

¶83

4.13 The applicant has allowed the sale to be conducted successfully and failed to exercise his right of redemption in the appropriate point of time.

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

Thus, the applicant is a fence sitter and as per apex court verdicts, such Fence sitters are not entitled to any relief. Further, the applicant is legally barred from exercising his right of Redemption.

¶88

4.14 The writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 32509 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, seeking a direction to this Hon’ble Tribunal to take up and dispose of the stay petition in S.I.A. No. 1409 of 2022 within a time frame. The matter was listed on 05.12.2022, and the respondent Bank appeared through counsel, submitting that the sale certificate had already been issued in favour of the successful purchaser on 02.12.2022 and duly registered. Considering that S.A. No. 480 of 2022 was pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court declined to interfere with its jurisdiction. Consequently, the applicant withdrew the writ petition at the admission stage, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.12.2022.

¶89

4.15 Hence respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶90

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of

¶91

the case

¶92

It is manifest from the records that the applicant as borrower availed cash credit of Rs.400 Lakhs and machinery loan of Rs.100 lakhs. To secure the credit facilities availed, applicant has executed registered mortgage of deposit of title deeds dated 28.13.2018 vide Doc.No.5509/2018 and the machineries in the factory premises of the applicant been hypothecated to the bank.

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

5.1 In fact the applicant does not dispute the availing of the facilities and the mortgage of the properties (immovable as well as hypothecated) including the default in the repayment. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 22.01.2020 in accordance with RBI guidelines.

¶97

5.2 The respondent had issued a Recall Notice calling upon the applicant to repay a sum of Rs.4,15,39,888.82/- and Rs.84,54,985.50/- due as on 10.02.2020 but the applicant failed to respond. Hence, the respondent issued U/s.13(2) demand notice dated 20.04.2020 under the SARFAESI Act. Applicant failed to cause any objection, hence the respondent bank has proceeded further under the Act. The respondent issued u/s.13(4) Possession notice dated 12.08.2020 under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant neither challenged it nor responded positively.

¶98

5.3 The applicant caused a letter requesting for further credit facility under GECL Scheme for the benefit of business enterprise and MSME borrowers. As per the scheme announced by Government of India the salient feature is that those accounts classified as NPA do not qualify for a Loan under the scheme.

¶99

5.4 The Respondent Bank has forwarded a detailed reply to the Applicant expressing its inability to consider the Applicant’s request for enhanced working capital, as the operation of the loan accounts are not running healthy. Further, through its letter dated 29.06.2020 Respondent Bank has informed that it suspects diversion of funds as the funds borrowed from

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

bank have not been deployed as envisaged originally at the time of sanction of credit limits.

¶104

5.5 The Bank clearly informed the Applicant that, with regard to the health of the account, the Company has maintained a poor track record. This includes non-submission of proper estimates, delays in commencing commercial operations, inability to secure orders from prospective buyers as indicated at various intervals, frequent changes in machinery suppliers, alterations to project plans, performance falling short of original estimates and projections, unsatisfactory account conduct, non-compliance with sanction terms, and other irregularities.

¶105

5.6 The Applicant Company may not be commercially viable. Moreover, the scheme applies only to accounts that were classified as standard as on 31.03.2018, whereas the Company availed the credit facility only at the end of 2018. Additionally, the Company has diverted the borrowed funds in violation of the sanction terms. Therefore, the Applicant Company is not an eligible borrower under the scheme.

¶106

5.7 It is seen that the applicant already challenged the earlier sale notice dated 29.09.2020 in SA.No.158/2020 before Hon’ble DRT-II Chennai. Interim order of stay was granted and conditional order that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/to be deposited on or before 10.11.2020 and Rs.15,00,000/- within 2 weeks thereafter and order payment of Rs.75,00,000/- within 8 weeks, whereas the applicant failed to comply with

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

the conditional order passed in S.A.No.158/2020 and Hon’ble DRT-II also dismissed the SA for default on 29.10.2021 for non-prosecution.

¶111

5.8 Therefore, the SA No.158/2020 applicant filed WP.No.17864/2020 before Hon’ble High Court Madras which was dismissed. The respondent bank entertained the applicant’s request for OTS and sanctioned the OTS to be allowed and makes a payment of Rs.5,50,00,000/- and applicant’s it was also agreed that the above Rs.5,50,00,000/- should be paid and Rs.2 crores – December 2021 (paid by applicant) and the balance amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- should be paid 36 equal EMIs starting from Feb’2022. But the applicant failed to pay a single payment of EMI as agreed till date. Hence the applicant was constrained to proceed further by scheduling e- auction sale of the property on 25.11.2022.

¶112

5.9 The first sale was on 10.11.2020 and second sale scheduled by the respondent bank on 25.11.2022. The bidders participated in the e-auction on 25.11.2022. This respondent bank was successful in completing the e- auction sale and declaring Mr.Harakh Chand Golecha, Mr.Uttam Chand Golecha, Snehalatha and Surekha as successful purchasers. The entire sale consideration of Rs.3,05,50,000/- was paid by the successful purchasers on 02.12.2022, and Sale Certificate was also issued in favour of successful bidders on 02.12.2022 which is produced at Pg.16-20 of respondent bank typed set, and the possession of the property was also handed over to the auction purchasers and the same was duly acknowledged by the purchasers.

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

5.10 Sale certificate was also registered on 05.12.2022 vide Doc.No.7255/2022 before the SRO, Gummidipoondi. Hence 3^rd party interest has been created over the secured asset. The purchasers were declared as successful bidders for the movable assets on the auction 25.11.2022 and it was sold for Rs.1,52,00,000/-.

¶117

5.11 The writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 32509 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, seeking a direction to this Hon’ble Tribunal to take up and dispose of the stay petition in S.I.A. No. 1409 of 2022 within a time frame. The matter was listed on 05.12.2022, and the respondent Bank appeared through counsel, submitting that the sale certificate had already been issued in favour of the successful purchaser on 02.12.2022 and duly registered. Considering that S.A. No. 480 of 2022 was pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court declined to interfere with its jurisdiction. Consequently, the applicant withdrew the writ petition at the admission stage, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.12.2022.

¶118

5.12 On the other hand, the respondent bank has established the due compliance of the procedures as contemplated under the Act in enforcing the security with supporting documents as required under the Act.

¶119

5.13 The applicant is failed to make out any ground of violation or any infirmity in the measures taken by the respondent bank.

¶120

5.14 It is seen that the applicant with an intention to settle the liability has entered into an OTS settlement which was sanctioned by the respondent bank and applicant also paid a payment of Rs.2 cores in December 2021

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

and the balance amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- should be paid 36 Equal EMIs starting from Feb’2022. But the applicant failed to pay the balance OTS settlement amount as agreed till date and failed to comply with the term of the OTS proposal. 5.15 Further there is not dispute with regard to the issuance of S.13(2) demand notice and Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 29.07.2020 and the present sale notice dated 19.10.2022. It is seen that the applicant has also approached the Hon’ble High Court in writ which also came to be dismissed. 5.16 The other contention raised by the applicant is that they are not given the benefit of GECL scheme for benefit of MSME borrower is clarified by the respondent bank that the applicant are not eligible for the GECL benefit as it is applicable to the loan accounts which has not classified as NPA. In the instant matter, the account of the applicant is classified as NPA on 22.01.2020, hence they are not eligible under the scheme.

¶125

5.17 Further the applicant having failed to comply with OTS settlement agreed upon and has failed to exercise their right to redeem the property u/s.13(8) in spite of respondent granted by the respondent. Further the applicant had also challenged the 1^st sale notice dated 29.09.2020 and sale held on 10.11.2020 which failed due to no bidder. The respondent bank issued 2^nd sale notice dated 19.10.2022 and sale held on 25.11.2022 and sale certificates dated 02.12.2022 issued favouring auction purchaser.

¶126

5.18 Therefore, the Tribunal concludes the measure taken by the respondent bank in issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 20.04.2020 and Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 12.08.2020 are held

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

as valid notices and 2^nd sale notice dated 19.10.2022; sale held on 25.11.2022 and Sale Certificates dated 02.12.2022 issued favoring auction purchaser are in accordance with the procedures as required under the Act and Rules made thereunder and same are held as valid measures.

¶131

5.19 For the foregoing reasons, the present SA fails and accordingly SA stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending

¶132

IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶133

Sd/- (S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶134

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 20^th day of April, 2026)

¶135

ANNEXURES

¶136

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶137

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Certificate from Micro Small and Medium Enterprises dated 16.09.2015.	A-1
2.	Sanction Letter from the respondent bank dated 27.11.2018.	A-2
3.	Property Valuation Report dated 08.12.2018.	A-3
4.	Emails sent by Petitioner to respondent dated 30.11.2019.	A-4
5.	Recall notice issued by the respondent dated 07.02.2020.	A-5
6.	Legal notice issued by the respondent bank dated 16.03.2020.	A-6
7.	Letter from Petitioner to respondent dated 20.03.2020.	A-7
8.	Letter from Petitioner from respondent bank U/s.13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 20.04.2020.	A-8
9.	Letter from respondent bank to petitioner dated 29.06.2020.	A-9

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

10.	Letter issued by Petitioner seeking support under credit Guarantee Scheme dated 01.07.2020.	A-10
11.	Letter issued by the respondent bank dated 01.07.2020.	A-11
12.	Letter from respondent bank to Petitioner dated 04.07.2020.	A-12
13.	Possession Notice to Petitioner from respondent bank U/s.13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 29.07.2020.	A-13
14.	Possession Notice to Petitioner from Respondent bank U/s.13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 12.08.2020.	A-14
15.	Impugned Sale Notice issued by the respondent bank dated 29.09.2020.	A-15
16.	Interim order passed by Hon’ble DRT in SA.No.158 of 2020 dated 09.11.2020.	A-16
17.	OTS Sanction letter issued by the respondent dated 26.11.2021.	A-17
18.	Proof of payment of Rs.2 Crores dated 27.04.2022.	A-18
19.	Impugned Sale Notice dated 19.10.2022.	A-19

¶142

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶143

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Order of SA.No.158 of 2020 dated 09.11.2020.	R-1
2.	Order of W.P.No.17864 of 2020 dated 23.03.2021.	R-2
3.	Letter of Sale confirmation issued by respondent in favour of auction purchasers dated 25.11.2022.	R-3
4.	Letter issued by respondent bank to auction purchasers dated 02.12.2022.	R-4
5.	Sale Certificate issued by respondent bank to auction purchasers dated 02.12.2022.	R-5
6.	Order of W.P.No.32509 of 2022 dated 05.12.2022.	R-6

¶144

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶145

All that piece and parcel of 4.41 Acres of land and 41656 sq.ft. of factory building at No.15, Gummidipoondi Panchhayath under Survey No.281/6B, 281/7A, 281/10, 281/3, 281/6C, 281/7B, 281/8, 281/2, 281/5, 281/6A, 281/4, 281/9C, 281/9A, 275/1, 275/3A, 275/2 and 275/4,

SA No.480/2022

20.04.2026

275/9, 275/8, 275/5, 275/7B, 275/19, 275/3B, 275/17, 275/7A, 275/11, 275/21, 275/22, 275/10, 275/15, 275/20, 275/14, 275/16, 275/6, 275/9, 275/12, 275/13, Vaniyamalli Thanipoondi Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District in the name of M/s. Anoushka Commodities Pvt. Ltd., as per sale deed No.3875/2015 and sale deed No.630/2016 at SRO Gummidipoondi.

¶150

Sd/- PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Anoushka Commodities P Ltd. v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoushka Commodities P Ltd. v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

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

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Svlp Travels

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S J Kaizen Consortium

N Selvam versus Selvam

Karur Vysya Bank versus Murugappan

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Sri Saha Agencies

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Priyaa Engineering