Allowed

Indian Bank v. T Ramalakshmi

DRAT16 Jun 2025REGULAR APPEAL/22/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an appeal under the SARFAESI Act challenging an unreasoned appellate order. It held that a sale certificate cannot be challenged independently of the sale notice and sale. The bar set aside the lower appellate order for being cryptic and not reasoned, remanding the matter for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Order of DRT-III dated 13.4.2022 in SA No.15/2022 set aside; matter remitted to DRT-III for disposal after giving both parties an opportunity.

Indian Bank versus T Ramalakshmi — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

RA(SA) 22/2022

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 16^th day of June, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶5

RA(SA) 22/2022

¶6

(arising our of SA No.15/2022 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, No.18, K.V. Koil Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

¶9

…..Appellant Bank

¶10

And

¶11

1. Mrs. T. Ramalakshmi, W/o S. Thirumalaiswamy, No.5, Periasamypuram Main Road, Ariyanayagipuram, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli 627 862.

¶12

2. Mr. B. Titto Raj, S/o T.K. Balakrishnan, No.5, Old G.S.T. Road, Kulakkarai Street, Irumbuliyur, Tambaram, Chennai 600 059.

¶13

…..Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Appellant Bank : Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, Senior Counsel for M/s Aiyar & Dolia Counsel for First respondent : M/s Mr.R. Dhamodaran & Co.

¶15

Second respondent remained ex parte.

RA(SA) 22/2022

ORDER

This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the order dated 13.4.2022 passed in SA 15/2022 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, i.e., challenging he true Extract of the proceedings dated 13.4.2022.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel Shri Jayesh B. Dolia appearing on behalf of M/s Aiyar & Dolia for the appellant bank submitted that this SA was filed challenging the Sale Certificate dated 30.12.2020. The impugned order does not record the case of the parties, discussed about the pleadings and the documents produced and order was passed. Order is passed without assigning any reason. For this reason alone, this order is liable to be set aside and remitted back to DRT-II, Chennai, for disposal in accordance with law. Therefore, Learned Counsel for the appellant bank prayed the Tribunal to allow the appeal.

¶21

In reply, Learned Counsel for first respondent submitted that none of the notices starting from demand Notice, possession notice and sale notice dated 13.5.2016, 2.9.2016 and 30.11.2018 respectively had been served on the first respondent. First respondent was ready and willing to settle the loan amount, but bank refused to give statement of accounts. Thereafter, bank gave statement of accounts inflating the loan due. First respondent came to know about the sale, only after getting encumbrance certificate. It

¶22

is further submitted that the husband of the first respondent, Late Mr.

¶23

¶24

RA(SA) 22/2022

¶25

Thirumalaiswamy, who was one of the applicants in the earlier SA No.107/2017 challenging the first sale notice dated 24.2.2017 died during COVID on 14.5.2021. First respondent was not aware of the sale. No notice was given before confirming the sale. Under the said circumstances, setting aside the sale certificate by the Learned Presiding Officer is just and in accordance with law, therefore, prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.

¶26

Second respondent remained ex parte.

¶27

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶28

One of the main grounds raised by Learned Counsel for first respondent is notice issued under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) for determining the amount due and for taking possession and the sale notice had not been served on the first respondent. This submission was refuted by Learned Senior Counsel for appellant bank by stating that all notices had been properly served.

¶29

On perusal of records shows that first respondent filed SA 107/2017, challenging the sale notice dated 24.2.2017, scheduling the sale on 30.3.2017. This was the first sale notice. This SA was allowed mainly on the ground that there was no representation for respondent bank for the last three adjournments, despite direction by the Tribunal to furnish statement of accounts Against this order bank preferred RA (SA) 118/2018 before this Tribunal. In the appeal, this respondent who was successful before the

¶30

¶31

RA(SA) 22/2022

¶32

Tribunal below remained absent for more than two hearings. Therefore, Learned Chairperson chose to allow the appeal on the ground that SA 107/2017 was allowed mainly for the reason of absence on the part of appellant bank and with a view to give an opportunity to the bank to contest the SA, as bank is the custodian of public money.

¶33

After remand, SA 107/2017 was taken up for hearing and disposed of on 17.5.2018. It appears that there was no representation for the first respondent herein. Therefore, Learned Presiding Officer, while recording the proceedings, observed in last three paragraphs, as follows:

¶34

“ Notwithstanding the above contradictory issues perpetuated by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank, counter and typed set of documents are now examined and found that the respondent bank had followed all the procedure as warranted under law, while issuing the subject impugned sale notice, while there is an infirmity establishing the date of paper publication of sale notice caused. It is also observed that the grounds of appeal except for standard regular allegations, there are no specific allegations with regard to any of the infirmities.

¶35

In the result, the earlier order dated 11.7.2017 is upheld with a direction to the respondent bank to forward the statement of accounts under registered post acknowledgment due to the appellants within the next one week from the date of this order and if for any reason, appellants are not receiving the said statement of account, respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further under SARFAESI act as warranted under law, for the recovery of balance amounts, if any remitted by appellants by 31.5.2018.

¶36

With the above directions, SA is disposed. Interim stay, if any, granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated”

¶37

This observation of Learned Presiding Officer makes it clear that respondent

¶38

bank followed all the procedures as warranted under law, while issuing the

¶39

¶40

RA(SA) 22/2022

¶41

sale notice. While it was observed that there is an infirmity in establishing the dates of publication, it was also observed that in the grounds of the appeal except standard allegations, there was no specific allegation to any of the infirmity. However, Learned Presiding Officer proceeded to hold that earlier order dated 11.7.2017 is upheld. It is not known how such a decision was taken when it was found that bank has followed all the procedures as warranted under law and there was no specific allegations with regard to infirmities in the application filed. Against this order none of the parties preferred any appeal.

¶42

Typed set of papers produced by Learned Counsel for first respondent shows that a fresh sale notice dated 30.11.2018, fixing the sale on 20.12.2018 was issued. In pursuance of that sale notice, sale was held on 20.12.2018. It was further submitted that sale certificate was issued on 30.12.2020. First respondent had not challenged this sale notice. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the first respondent that this sale notice was not served on the respondent. Now respondent filed SA 15/2022, challenging the sale certificate dated 30.12.2020.

¶43

Now, the question that looms large is whether the issuance of sale certificate, which is an administrative action can be challenged as a measure. The answer is an emphatic ‘no’. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that without challenging the sale notice and sale,

¶44

¶45

RA(SA) 22/2022

¶46

issuance of sale certificate alone cannot be challenged. That apart, as already indicated, the order impugned is not a reasoned order and a cryptic

¶47

order without recording the case of the parties, documents relied on by them and the submissions made by them. Therefore, this order is liable to be set aside and matter can be remitted back to Tribunal below for a fresh consideration.

¶48

Accordingly, the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai dated 13.4.2022 passed in SA No.15/2022 is set aside. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, is directed to dispose of SA No.15/2022, as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and after giving opportunity to both parties to present their case, in the manner known to law.

¶49

In the result, Appeal RA(SA) 22/2022 is allowed, with the above direction.

¶50

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶51

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶52

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 16^th Day of June, 2025)

¶53

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶54

Indian Bank v. T Ramalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. T Ramalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt M Subathra versus State Bank of India

Mrs Kanimoli versus Karnataka Bank Limited

N R Imayavaramban versus State Bank of India

Ms Sri Nathan Traders versus Canara Bank

J Srinivasalu versus 1 Union Bank of India and 2 K S Raja

Yesskay Renewable Venture Private Limited versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited