Back
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Justice G. Chandrasekharan, CJ
B.K.Dilli – Appellant
Versus
The Authorised Officer Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., B.Karthik – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. section 18 of sarfaesi act allows appeal against final orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenges in auction process highlight inadequacies in property description. (Para 4) |
| 3. statutory requirements necessitate accurate property valuation and notice. (Para 5) |
| 4. proper notice service is essential for legal proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 5. auction procedures must uphold borrower rights and ensure fairness. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 6. judicial determinations must stem from strict adherence to statutory guidelines. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. omission of building details invalidates auction sale process. (Para 30) |
| 8. court ordered refund and fresh sale under law. (Para 31 , 32) |
ORDER
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 , challenging the final order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT - II, Chennai, in TSA 182/2023 dated 07.07.2023.
2. Appellant is a borrower, the 1st Respondent is a Secured Creditor and 2nd Respondent is the Auction Purchaser. The Appellant filed TSA 182/2023 against the measures taken under SARFAESI Act, 2002 , with a prayer to set aside the Sale Notice dated 01.10.2021 fixing the auction sale on 25.10.2021.
3. On considering the materials
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
