Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, J
Borrower – Appellant
Versus
Respondent Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the borrower challenges a fresh demand notice after prior payments. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the bank recognizes a calculation error and is willing to reconsider the case. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the court orders the bank to reconsider the notice and provide a hearing. (Para 6) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. With the consent of both the counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present petition is filed by the borrower, who had borrowed certain loan for business purposes and due to loss in the business, could not continue the business and was unable to pay the installments to the respondent bank. In view of non-payment of the regular installments, the respondent issued demand/possession notice dated 06.01.2023 in respect of secured assets for recovery of Rs.27,91,695.07. The petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’, for short) by filing S.A. No.45/2023 challenging the possession notice. The Tribunal by order dated 20.01.2023 passed an interim order. In compliance of the interim order, the petitioner deposited Rs.6,98,000/- being approximately 25% of the claim amount. During the pendency of
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
