Back
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
G. Chandrasekharan, CJ
The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. T. Ramalakshmi, Mr. B. Titto Raj – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging sale notice and certificate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's evaluation of prior proceedings and procedural adherence. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. claims regarding notice and the respondent's knowledge of the sale. (Para 6) |
| 4. requirement of legal notice for procedural fairness. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. decision remitted for fair consideration in lower court. (Para 12) |
ORDER
1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the order dated 13.4.2022 passed in SA 15/2022 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, i.e., challenging he true Extract of the proceedings dated 13.4.2022.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Jayesh B. Dolia appearing on behalf of M/s Aiyar & Dolia for the appellant bank submitted that this SA was filed challenging the Sale Certificate dated 30.12.2020. The impugned order does not record the case of the parties, discussed about the pleadings and the documents produced and order was passed. Order is passed without assigning any reason. For this reason alone, this order is liable to be set aside and remitted back to DRT-II, Chennai, for disposal in accordance with law. Therefore, Learned Counsel for the appellant bank prayed the T
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
