Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.P.SAHI, CJ, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
N.Madhavan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner argues lack of notice and challenges sarfaesi actions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court evaluates validity of pre-deposit requirements for guarantors. (Para 3 , 12) |
| 3. legal distinction between first-instance and appellate proceedings established. (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court affirms obligation for pre-deposit under sarfaesi act. (Para 9) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed, confirming lawful pre-deposit requirements. (Para 13) |
ORDER
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.,
The Petitioner is admittedly a guarantor of his brother-in-law, Mr.P.K.Selvaraj, who availed credit facilities, including overdraft facilities, from the Indian Bank, the 6th Respondent herein. As security for such credit facilities, the Petitioner admittedly mortgaged the property at New S.F. No.47/5A, Plot No.23, Old Door No.4/A/23, New Door No.5/14 NGGO's Colony, Chinnamudalaipatti Village, Namakkal Taluk and District, ad-measuring about 2400 sq.ft. The Petitioner states that, upon default by the principal debtor, he did not receive the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (the SARFAESI Act). Eventually, he came to kn
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
