SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20

MADRAS HIGH COURT
*Satish K. Agnihotri, P. Devadass, JJ.
Juvalamukhi V. v. District Magistrate-Cum-District Collector Coimbatore and Others


1. Since both the writ petitions emanate from one and the same order, they are considered and decided by this common order.

2. The facts in a nutshell, leading to the filing of the instant writ petitions are that the petitioners entered into lease agreements dated 26 July 2010 and 07 June 2010 respectively, with the respondents 3 and 4 in respect of a portion situated in the ground floor of the building bearing Door No. 147, Thiruvenkatasamy Road (West), R. S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002, for a period of eleven months on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondents 3 and 4 stood guarantee for the loan availed by one Vignesh Alloys Private Ltd. from the second respondent - Canara Bank on mortgage of the properties in question belonging to the fourth respondent. Upon the secured asset having been classified as NPA, a demand notice under S.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act) was issued to the borrower, viz., Vignesh Alloys Private Ltd., on 08 October 2012, calling upon the said company to pay a sum of Rs.26,20,84,716.87. Notices were issued to all the guarantors, incl

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top