Back
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson
Gajiala Jayamma – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of loan default, sarfaesi proceedings, prior s.a., auction despite interim order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on interim order validity, cheque compliance with r.9(3), merger in final dismissal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. interim order prohibited sale confirmation until 11.04.2016 judgment delivery. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. cheque for 25% bid violates mandatory immediate cash deposit and sale notice terms. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. supreme court precedents affirm r.9(3) mandates cash, not cheque; provision is mandatory. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. sale confirmation during interim order is nullity; appeal allowed, auction set aside. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT : 19t* December, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Instant Appeal No. 250 of 2018 has arisen against a judgment and order dated 30% October 2018 passed by Learned DRT-2 Hyderabad dismissing S.A. No. 1398 of 2017 (Smt. Gajjala Jayamma versus Canara Bank and others).
2. As per pleadings of the parties, facts of the case are that admittedly Appellant Smt. Gajjala Jayamma was a borrower who offered S.A. schedule property as a security for
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
