Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
priya vs CANARA BANK on 10 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
IA 833/2026 (Urgent) in IA 834/2026 (Waiver) in A.IR:1150/2026
Priya V/S Canara Bank & anr
10/09/2026
Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, this urgent application is allowed. IA 834/2026 (Waiver) Aggrieved against the final order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, in NDN SA 503/2026, this appeal is filed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner filed the aforesaid securitization application to set aside the sale certificate registered on 03.03.2025 as document No.1207/2026. Learned Presiding Officer, dismissed the securitization application on the ground of maintainability and therefore, this appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the sale was held without following the mandatory measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued the sale certificate. Without considering the grounds on merits, the learned Presiding Officer, dismissed the securitization application on maintainability. Thus, this appeal. The petitioner is not able to mobilise funds and seeks waiver of pre-deposit. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the amount claimed in the sale notice is only Rs.14,14,779.52p. and as per the order dated 18.02.2026 passed learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalur, in Crl.M.P.No.11566/2025, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the amount due was at Rs.12,12,195/-. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes this application on the ground that the sale was properly conducted and sale certificate was issued and registered. There is no irregularity or illegality in the conduct of the sale. He sees time to get further instructions. The prayer in the securitization application shows that only registration of sale certificate is challenged. Neither the sale notice nor the sale held in pursuance of the sale notice was challenged by the petitioner.
Be that as it may, as per the sale certificate dated 03.03.2026, the sale price was Rs.29,20,000/-. Pre-deposit is mandatory for entertaining this appeal. Now, the property is sold and third party interest is created. At the request of the learned counsel for the respondent, post the matter on 11.09.2026.
Sd/-
Chairperson