Allowed

A O Dbs Bank India Ltd. v. S a Chandrasekar

DRAT18 Nov 2025REGULAR APPEAL/49/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the Bank's appeals, holding that the Debts Recovery Tribunal erred in setting aside the Possession and Sale Notices. The Court found the lower tribunal failed to provide scientific data proving the newspapers lacked sufficient circulation, ruling that the notices were validly served under SIE Rules, 2002.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Presiding Officer in SA 39/2018 and SA 95/2018 is set aside.

A O Dbs Bank India Ltd. versus S a Chandrasekar — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT

¶2

CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 18^th of November, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶5

R.A(S.A):49/2019 and R.A(S.A):50/2019

¶6

(S.A. No.95/2018 and SA 39/2018 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

The Authorized Officer M/s DBS Bank India Limited (formerly M/s. The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited) Perambur Branch, No.86, Sundaraja Perumal Koil Street (South) Peravallur Chennai – 600 082.

¶9

…. Appellant in R.A(S.A):49/2019 and R.A(S.A):50/2019

¶10

And

¶11

Mr. S.A. Chandrasekar Propreitor of M/s. Sri Sakthi Tools Residing at No.10/4, Raj Street, West K.K. Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.

¶12

Mr. C.A. Ashok Kumar Son of Appadurai No.5, Asaithambi Street Madhiazhagan Nagar, Padi Chennai- - 600 050.

¶13

Mrs.Punitha wife of Mr.S.A.Chandrasekar No.10/4, Raja Street West K.K.Nagar Chennai – 600 078.

¶14

Mr.C.Bharath Son of Mr.S.A.Chandrasekar No.10/4, Raja Street West K.K.Nagar Chennai – 600 078. .. Respondents in R.A(S.A):49/2019 and R.A(S.A):50/2019

¶15

Counsel for Appellant : M/s. R. Umasuthan Counsel for R2 : Mr. V. Karthikeyan

¶16

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

These Appeals in RA (SA) 49/2019 and RA (SA) 50/2019 are filed against the common order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, on 07.03.2019 in SA 39/2018 and SA 95/2018.

¶19

1.1 SA 39/2018 was filed challenging Possession Notice dated 05.01.2018 and SA 95/2018 was filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 08.02.2018. Against the order allowing both the Securitisation Applications, these Appeals are filed.

¶20

Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank submitted that Learned Presiding Officer found the classification of account as NonPerforming Asset (NPA) was in accordance with norms and guidelines of RBI and that Demand Notice was properly served. However, Learned Presiding Officer found that the Possession Notice published in ‘Trinity Mirror’, English daily and ‘Makkal Kular’, Tamil daily is not proper and recorded in the order that these newspapers are not widely circulated and leading newspaper and they are political newspapers. In this view of the matter, Possession Notice was set aside. It was also found that Sale Notice dated 08.02.2018 was issued based on the Possession Notice dated 05.01.2018, which was declared as not valid in law and thus set aside the Sale Notice also. Taking note of the Affidavit filed by the Applicant in the SA

¶21

¶22

95/2018 stating that the Applicant was willing to redeem his property, by paying amount, directed the Applicant to pay outstanding loan amount mentioned in the Sale Notice to the Bank. On such payment, he was given entitlement to redeem the property within a month from the date of order. The Applicant was also directed to return the excess amount of Rs.9,92,598.70p received by him from the Bank with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of amount to the Auction Purchaser. Further direction was given to the Bank to return the bid amount received from the Auction Purchaser with Bank rate of interest.

¶23

2.1 It is the further submission of Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank that the right of redemption available to the borrower is lost when once the Sale Notice is published. Even as per the direction of Learned Presiding Officer, the borrower has not paid the amount as claimed in the Sale Notice. Setting aside the Possession Notice on the ground that it was not published in widely circulated and leading newspaper, and on that basis, setting aside the Sale Notice is not known to law and against the evidence available. The aforesaid newspapers are widely circulated in and around the place where the secured asset is situated, and thus, prays for setting the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer in SA 39/2018 and SA 95/2018 and for allowing these Appeals.

¶24

¶25

After filing these Appeals, the Applicant/Respondent No.1, borrower, died and his LRs have been impleaded as Respondents 3 and 4 in the Appeals. The Auction Purchaser, who was not a party before the Tribunal, is also impleaded as Respondent No.2, in the Appeals. Despite serving notice on Respondents 3 and 4, none appeared for them. Therefore, they are called absent and set ex parte . Mr. Karthikeyan, Advocate is appearing for Respondent No.2, but there was no representation for Respondent No.2 for several hearings. In the said circumstances, this Tribunal proceeds to dispose of these Appeals.

¶26

It is seen from the order impugned, Learned Presiding Officer found that the classification of loan account as NPA on 30.08.2017 was as per norms and guidelines of RBI. There is also a finding that the Demand Notice dated 06.10.2017 was served on the borrower; Possession Notice was affixed on the conspicuous place and was duly served on the borrower. The ground on which the Possession Notice was set aside was that ‘Trinity Mirror’ English daily and ‘Makkal Kural’ Tamil daily, were not widely circulated and leading newspapers in India. It is not known on what basis this finding is reached. Unless a data is provided before the Tribunal as to the circulation figures of the various newspapers including ‘Trinity Mirror’ and ‘Makkal Kumar’, as to its readership, it cannot be decided with certainty that these newspapers are not widely circulated. There was also no material produced to show that these

¶27

¶28

newspapers are political newspapers. Thus, this Tribunal is of the view that setting aside the Possession Notice without any scientific data as to the extent of circulation, on the ground that these newspapers were not widely circulated is not correct.

¶29

Thus, order passed by DRT in SA 39/2018 is set aside. It is held that Possession Notice was duly served, affixed and served as required under SIE Rules, 2002.

¶30

Sale Notice dated 08.02.2018 was set aside mainly on the ground that the Possession Notice dated 05.01.2018 was set aside. Now that this Tribunal held that setting aside the Possession Notice dated 05.01.2018 is not correct. In consequence thereof, this Tribunal sets aside the order setting aside Sale Notice dated 08.02.2018.

¶31

As per the submission of Learned Counsel for Appellant that though right of redemption was made available to borrower, for which he was not entitled, the borrower has not even availed this opportunity and paid money to the Bank and tried to redeem the property as directed by the Tribunal.

¶32

In the said circumstances, this Tribunal finds that order passed in SA 39/2018 and SA 95/2018 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

¶33

¶34

In fine , the order of Learned Presiding Officer passed in SA 39/2018 and SA 95/2018 is set aside and SAs are dismissed. The Appeals in RA (SA) 49/2019 and RA (SA) 50/2019 are allowed with the costs of Appellant Bank.

¶35

The excess sale consideration, is to be paid to the

¶36

Respondents 3 and 4 along with interest as ordered.

¶37

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me this 18^th of November, 2025]

¶38

[Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON

¶39

A O Dbs Bank India Ltd. v. S a Chandrasekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A O Dbs Bank India Ltd. v. S a Chandrasekar

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

Sv Trading versus Religare Finvest Limited

M/s. Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank & Ors. versus M/s Arvind Remedies Ltd.

A O Dbs Bank India Ltd. versus S a Chandrasekar

R.Nagaraj versus Messrs Mahan Textile Process India P Ltd.

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (Tiic) Ltd. versus mahan textile process india Pvt. Ltd.