Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SUKUMARAN SUJATHAN vs ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD on 11 November 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 309/2019 (Stay) In A.IR:109/2019
Sukumaran Sujathan & Anr V/S Arcil & Ors 11/11/2026
Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out from the counter affidavit filed by the first and second respondent that the second respondent claims that borrowers’ Mumbai property was sold under the SARFAESI proceedings for Rs.1.80 crores and movable assets were sold for Rs.3.60 lakhs and in paragraph-5 of the counter, the made payment of Rs.1,67,99,618/- made by the petitioners towards credit facility was denied. The account statement produced by the petitioners for the period from 02.02.2008 to 27.01.2010 shows that petitioners made payment of Rs.1,67,99,618/-. Without considering the amount secured by the sale of the movable and immovable assets and payment of Rs.1,67,99,618/-, Dena Bank issued possession notice in the year 2011 claiming the same amount due mentioned in the demand notice at Rs.6,54,95,000/-. The same amount is again reflected in the fresh notice issued by the second respondent on 10.12.2016 as due as on 01.08.2007. It shows that the amount claimed in the possession notice is not duly representing the actual amount due.
Learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 is directed to give in writing as to whether the aforesaid amount is taken into consideration before issuing the possession notice.
At the request of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 , post the matter on 16.11.2026 for furnishing details as aforesaid. Sd/-
Chairperson