Bank appealed against DRT setting aside Securitisation Applications due to flawed Possession and Sale Notices. Tribunal held that setting aside based on unproven lack of newspaper circulation was illegal.
Orders of Learned Presiding Officer in SA 39/2018 and SA 95/2018 set aside; SAs dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT
CHENNAI
Dated the 18th of November, 2025
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON
R.A(S.A):49/2019 and R.A(S.A):50/2019
(S.A. No.95/2018 and SA 39/2018 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)
Between
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.
And
Counsel for Appellant : M/s. R. Umasuthan Counsel for R2 : Mr. V. Karthikeyan
1
COMMON ORDER
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.
2
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.
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.
3
4
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.
5
Respondents 3 and 4 along with interest as ordered.
[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me this 18th of November, 2025]
[Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether setting aside the Possession Notice for not being published in widely circulated newspapers is correct in absence of circulation data.
Whether the Sale Notice consequently requires to be set aside.
Whether borrower failed to avail right of redemption after direction to pay outstanding amount.
The Authorized Officer M/s DBS Bank India Limited (formerly M/s. The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited)
Mr. S.A. Chandrasekar
Mr. C.A. Ashok Kumar
Mrs.Punitha
Mr.C.Bharath
Auction Purchaser
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
30 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
