Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
UCO BANK vs JAISHANKAR SUNDARAM SON OF LATE T S SUNDARAM on 3 September 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
R.A(S.A):56/2024
A.O., Uco Bank V/S Jai Shankar Sundaram & Anr 03/09/2026
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
When the appeal is taken up, Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Securitization Application has been allowed primarily on two grounds –
i) There was no clear 30 days notice given through personal service of the sale notice. The sale notice dated 8.5.2015 was published in two newspapers on 9.5.2015, but it was sent through registered post only on 13.5.2015. Since the property was taken possession and kept under lock and key by the Appellant Bank, the sale notice was not physically served on the 1st Respondent. Even assuming that the sale notice would have been served, given the fact that the sale notice was posted only on 13.5.2015, certainly there could not have been 30 days notice, even assuming that the sale notice was served on 13.5.2015 itself.
ii) The other ground for allowing the Securitization Application is that the Appellant Bank failed to prove the affixture of sale notice in terms of Section 8(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Apart from these grounds, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent that the 1st Respondent came to know now, through RTI information received, that 15% of the sale consideration to constitute the 25% i.e., 10% EMD amount plus 15% balance amount to constitute the 25%, was paid on 12.6.2015. The balance sale consideration of 75% was paid only on 11.9.2015. As per the rules existed then, or in operation in the year 2015, the balance sale consideration ought to have been paid within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale. Therefore, it is submitted that the sale was rightly set aside.
At the request of Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank and 2nd Respondent, post the matter on 12.10.2026.
Sd/-
Chairperson