Dismissed

R Vani v. Punjab National Bank

DRT19 Dec 2025SA/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal issued an order dismissing the Securitization Application filed by the applicant to set aside a Section 14 order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Tribunal held that the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act procedures were properly followed, the possession was legally taken, and the subsequent sale

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed, upholding the Section 14 order and the possession taken by the respondent bank.

R Vani versus Punjab National Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 10 of 2023

¶8

R. Vani, W/o J. Rajendran, 1/62, Ottiampakkam Main Road, Sithalapakkam, Chennai – 600 126 …Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

M/s. Punjab National Bank, Rep. by its Authorized Officer S. Srinivasan, Having its Office at: Circle Sastra Centre, Chennai North, Spencer Plaza – Ground Floor, No.769, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 …Defendant

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P. Wilson Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Rahul Jain

¶13

ORDER ON SA No.10/2023

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging

¶15

the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Section 14 order in C.M.P.No.8751/2022 dated 22.09.2022 and the outstanding amount due as per Section 14 order is Rs.3,36,11,297.92/-

¶20

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶21

3.1 The Applicant is the Borrower who has availed a loan of Rs.2,67,97,000/- on 14.09.2018 and had mortgaged the property standing in the name of the applicant as Security towards the Credit Facility. It is contended that the applicant has been paying the payments regularly and have servicing the loan without any delay or default.

¶22

3.2 The bank has issued the Section 13(4) Possession Notice on 25.08.2021 claiming to have taken symbolic possession on 25.08.2021 for recovery of Rs.3,36,11,297.92/- due as on 31.03.2021.

¶23

3.3 The present SA has been filed challenging the Section 14 Order as illegal and arbitrary and the Authorized Officer has no qualification to Act as an Authorized Officer. The Ld. CJM had passed the order without giving the opportunity to the applicant and bank has suppressed the material facts in the affidavit. The Demand Notice was objected and there was no reply given by the respondent bank under Section 13(A), further Section 14(vii) is not complied.

¶24

3.4 The Possession Notice is not published in Two News Papers as per Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act and is not affixed on the property and the

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

applicant has relied on the Madras High Court Judgment in W.P. No. 3789 of 2017 “Padmavathy Vs Authorized Bank, Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd”.

¶29

3.5 The Applicant has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in ITC Limited Vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., where it is held that the reply under Section 13(3-A) of the Act should be given within 14 days. On these grounds, the Applicant prays to set aside the Section 14 order dated 22.09.2022 passed in C.M.P. No.8751/2022.

¶30

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶31

4.1 The Respondent Bank has filed the detailed counter inter alia countering all the contention as raised by the applicant herein. The specific case of the bank is that the applicant has availed various loan facilities namely, Housing Loan of Rs.2,67,97,000/- on 14.09.2018, Housing Loan of Rs.20,00,000/- on 25.10.2018 and Overdraft Housing Loan of Rs.25,00,000/- on 11.03.2020, totaling to Rs.3,12,97,000/- from the Respondent Bank and had mortgage the property as collateral security towards the Credit Facilities availed by the applicant.

¶32

4.2 Respondent Bank have issued the Section 13(2) Demand Notice on 05.04.2021 for an recovery of outstanding dues Rs.3,36,11,297.92/together with future interest and other charges. The Section 13(4) Possession Notice is issued to the applicant thereby taking symbolic possession of the property and an application is filed before CJM, Chengalpattu in C.M.P. No.8808/2022 and Ld. CJM vide order dated

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

11.10.2022 has appointed an Advocate Commission to take physical possession of the property and prepare the inventory.

¶37

4.3 Further, the Respondent have held the auction on 09.01.2023, one successful bidder Mr. M.A. Moorthy has paid 25% of the amount of Rs.86 Lakhs and the balance of Rs.2,55,00,000/- was paid. The Respondent have issued the Sale Certificate on 30.03.2023. It is contented that the applicant has not challenged the Section 13(4) Possession Notice and the sale notice within the period of 45 days hence the challenge to sale is time barred. The bank has issued the Section 13(4) Possession Notice, affixed on the property on 25.08.2021 also published in English Newspaper “Business Standard” and Tamil Newspaper “Hindu Tamil” on 28.08.2021 and have established the due compliance of the Section 13(4) Possession Notice, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble DRAT, Allahabad in “Bank of India and Ors Vs. Alchemist and Ors”, MANU/DA/0007/2021 held that:

¶38

“ 25. Besides, the possession notice was duly served and it was admitted by the S.A. applicants that they were having knowledge of the symbolic possession, yet they have not challenged the same till issuance of the sale notice, which is sufficient to infer that they have waived their right to challenge such issue. As such the principle of waiver also applies on the present set and circumstances of the matter…”

¶39

4.4 As there is no specific pleading or denial in the present S.A. that no possession notice was received by the applicant, it is clear admission of

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

the possession of the Section 13(4). The applicant had the knowledge of the sale notice property. Bank has issued on 20.12.2022 fixing the e- auction on 09.01.2023 and the sale notice was also affixed on the property on 20.12.2022 published in “The New Indian Express” and in “Dinamani” on 21.12.2022. The applicant vide order dated 11.01.2023 had obtained and interim order had directed the applicant to discharge the entire liability on or before 13.02.2023 and in spite of the auction purchaser EMP amount.

¶44

4.5 Despite the order, the applicant failed to discharge the debt and approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 12502/2023 seeking quashing the sale certificate issued and the Hon’ble High Court, while dismissing the said W.P., held that:

¶45

“6. There are no merits in the present Writ Petition as the Sale has taken place on 19.12.2022 in favour of the 2^nd respondent. The Sale Certificate has been issued to the 2^nd respondent dated 30.03.2023. The impugned Sale Certificate dated 30.03.2023 is pursuant to the sale made in favour of the 2^nd respondent on 19.12.2022”

¶46

4.6 The Applicant husband had illegally break open the lock of the scheduled property and tried to enter the property to which the applicant gave the complaint to local Perumbakkam Police Station and the police have lodged F.I.R. No. 134 of 2023 dated 24.05.2023 under Section 448 of I.P.C for trespass against the applicant’s husband. The bank has

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

followed all the due procedure under the Act and have also conduct the e- auction. Hence, the present SA is to be dismissed.

¶51

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶52

5.1 The Applicant has also filed the Written Submission admitting the availing of the Credit Facilities and the classification of the NPA which was during covid period which the applicant did not raised in the averments of the SA. Though the applicant has received the Section 13(2) Demand Notice and taken a contention that the outstanding amount claim is Rs.3,36,11,297.92/- pertaining to all the 3 accounts wherein Section 13(2) notice was not issued to the Overdraft Housing Loan A/c No.3619009900000751 of Rs.25,00,000, Housing Loan A/c No.361900NC000011682 of Rs.20,00,000/-, Housing Loan A/c

¶53

No.361900IS00001585 of Rs.5,00,000/-. These averments were not taken up by the applicant in the present SA and the pleading which has not pleaded in the SA cannot be considered.

¶54

5.2 Further, the Applicant has also contented the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 25.08.2021 is not served. The bank has counter by producing the affixture of the Section 13(4) notice on the property which is not disputed by the Applicant. Even otherwise, the challenge of Sec. 13(4) Possession Notice dated 25.08.2021 is not in the period of 45 days as required under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also admitted that the bank as filed the Section 14 order, Advocate

¶55

SA No.10/2023

¶56

7 19.12.2025

¶57

Commission was appointed to take a possession. Consequent to the order, the Advocate Commissioner vide Letter dated 29.12.2022 intimated the applicant to vacate the premises. Hence the applicant has filed the present SA.

¶58

5.3 The issue before this Tribunal is whether the bank has followed all the measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In fact, there is no dispute with availing of credit facilities and mortgaged of the property. Due to default in the repayment the bank has proceeded under SARFAESI Act after classifying the loan account as NPA followed by issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 05.04.2021 and to clear the entire liability which was not repaid within the period of 45 days nor any objection was raised.

¶59

5.4 Though the applicant has raised a contention that no reply where given to the objections raised under Section 13(3A) and also relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in ITC Limited Vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., where a reply under Section 13(3A) within a period of 14 days is mandatory. Applicant has raised such a contention has not produced a copy of the objections raised to the Demand Notice or postal receipts which is sent to the respondent bank. Hence the contention raised without any supporting documents fails.

¶60

5.5 The bank has proceeded in issuing Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 25.08.2021 which is not challenged within the period of 45 days. Hence the bank has filed the Section 14 application before the CJM and

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

the Ld. CJM after due verification of the application and the affidavit along with the supporting documents have allowed the Section 14 application vide order dated 22.09.2022, appointed the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property.

¶65

5.6 There is no dispute that the Respondent taken the Physical Possession of the property on 10.05.2023 and the bank has also issued the sale Notice dated 20.12.2022, wherein the property was scheduled to be sold on 09.01.2023, the property was successfully sold to the successful bidder and the payment of the entire sale consideration was paid, the sale certificate is also issued on 30.03.2023.

¶66

5.7 It is matter of fact that the applicant has approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.12502/2023 challenging sale certificate dated 30.03.2023 wherein in Hon’ble High Court has clearly observed that as the sale has been taken place on 19.12.2022, and the sale certificate is issued under the SARFAESI Act, the Hon’ble High Court did not interfere in sale certificate, however liberty was given for the applicant to approach the DRT. The prayer as sought in the SA is to set aside in the Section 14 order.

¶67

5.8 It is seen from the records that the applicant has raised a contention that the reply has to be given by the respondent to the objections raised by the applicant under Section 13(3A) and has placed reliance on the Section 14(vii) of the Act which reads as:

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower;

¶72

5.9 As the applicant has not produced the documents of objections or reply to the demand notice, hence there is no question of respondent giving reply as required under Section 13(3A) of the Act and the reliance of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in ITC Limited Vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., would not come to the aid of the applicant and though the applicant has not filed any documents to evidence the reply under Section 13(3A) of the Act.

¶73

5.10 It is seen from the records, the applicant has not pointed out any illegality in the measures under Section 14 and the Ld. CJM. After due consideration and verification of the documents have passed an order appointing the Advocate Commissioner to taken the Possession of the Property.

¶74

5.11 The Applicant have failed to make out a case to interference of this Tribunal in setting aside the Section 14 order as per the Section 14(3) of the Act, which reads as:

¶75

Section 14(3):

¶76

“No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate (any officer authorized by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or caused to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary.”

¶81

5.12 On the other hand, the Respondent have established the due compliance of the measures taken under the Act and the prayer as sought for has already rendered infructuous and the physical possession of the property is taken.

¶82

6 For the foregoing reasons, the present SA stand dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶83

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶84

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 19^th day of December, 2025)

¶85

ANNEXURES

¶86

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶87

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate order passed in CMP. No.8751 of 2022 dated 22.09.2022.
2.	Letter by Advocate Commissioner dated 29.12.2022.	A-2
3.	Sale Notice dated 22.11.2022.	A-3
	TYPED SET OF PAPERS
Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Copy of the transaction made by the applicant for the payment of Rs.5,00,000/-dated 24.02.2022.	A-1

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

2.	Copy of the OTS offer / Acceptance Letter issued by the Applicant to the Bank dated 06.10.2022.	A-2
3.	Copy of the remittance for the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the applicant dated 06.10.2022.	A-3
4.	Copy of the SMS received from the bank for the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- made by the applicant dated 27.10.2022.	A-4
5.	Copy of the remittance for the payment of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the applicant dated 31.10.2022.	A-5
6.	Copy of the Interim order passed by the Hon’ble DRT III in SA No.10/2023 dated 11.01.2023.	A-6
7.	Copy of the sale certificate issued by the Bank dated 30.03.2023.	A-7
8.	Copy of the Final Order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No.12502 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023.	A-8

¶92

LIST OF CITATIONS

¶93

Sl. No.	CASE CITATION	CASE NAME	Docum ent No.
1.	(2014) 5 SCC 610	Mathew Vargese V.M. Amritha Kumar	A-1
2.	2018 SCC online Mad 13300	Bharath Post Graduate College V. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited	A-2
3.	AIR 1992 SC 1555	In Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) V. M/s Shaw Brothers	A-3
4.	2003 8 SCC 319	Ram Chandra Singh V. Savitri Devi	A-4
5.	2013 AIR SC 3325	Devendra Kumar V. State of Uttaranchal and Others	A-5

¶94

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶95

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Section 13(2) Demand Notice issued by the respondent to the applicant dated 05.04.2021.	R-1
2.	Postal receipt and Acknowledgement Card issued by the Postal Authority.	R-2
3.	Online tract consignment issued by the postal authority.
4.	Section 13(4) Possession Notice issued by the respondent to the applicant dated 25.08.2021.	R-3
5.	Affixture of Possession Notice by the respondent	R-4

SA No.10/2023

19.12.2025

	dated 25.08.2021
6.	Publication of the Possession Notice by the respondent dated 28.08.2021.	R-5
7.	Sale Notice issued by the respondent to the applicant dated 20.12.2022.	R-7
8.	Postal receipt issued by the postal authority	R-8
9.	Publication of the Sale Notice by the respondent dated 21.12.2022	R-9
10.	Affixture of the Sale notice by the respondent	R-10
11.	Sale Certificated issued by the respondent to the Auction Purchaser dated 30.03.2023	R-11

¶100

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶101

All that piece and parcel of land admeasuring 6972 square feet and the building thereon bearing Door No.4/2005, Ottiyambakkam Main Road, Sithalapakkam, Chennai – 600 126, comprised in Survey No.230/6A1B and being bounded on the.,

¶102

North by : Land owned by Rajendran;

¶103

South by : Land owned by Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar;

¶104

East by : Road; and

¶105

West by : S.No.230/5A

¶106

Sd/(S.V.GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

R Vani v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Vani v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus M/S Pranav Foundations Private Limited

Andhra Bank versus S B Agencies

Ms Nakshatra Garments and C M Prabhu and H Navaneetham Prabhu versus City Union Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Mr G M Sajjad Parvez And Other

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Mahek Udyog

C Krishnamurthy versus Indian Overseas Bank