Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Sanjib Banerjee, CJ, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
M/s.Sinduja & Co. – Appellant
Versus
The Authorised Officer, UCO Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. borrowers failed to provide adequate reasons against the bank's actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention regarding auction purchaser's delay was not substantiated. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court found no irregularity in the appellate tribunal's approach. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. potential for discretion in granting time was not exercised due to borrower's conduct. (Para 8) |
| 5. final decision dismissed without costs with instruction on potential refund. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The borrowers have failed in their myriad excuses proffered before both the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and now seek to approach this Court with the object of gaining more time and delaying the closure of the transaction with the bank.
2. The facts have been lucidly indicated in the order impugned dated February 1, 2021 passed by the appellate tribunal. The petitioners obtained substantial credit facilities from UCO Bank in 2012 upon mortgaging their individual properties as security. A demand notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest A
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
