The Tribunal held that personal guarantors are not 'aggrieved' persons to challenge a possession notice directed at properties owned by the borrower company which is under liquidation. The application was dismissed as not maintainable.
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 TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI
Dated this 12th Day of November, 2025
PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA Presiding Officer
S.A. No.16 of 2025
Son of Mr. C. K. M Hyder Aged about 67 years Residing at No. 391, 2nd cross, 2nd main, 2nd stage, RMV Extention, Bengaluru – 560 058.
Wife of Mr. Naseer Ahmed, Aged about 63 years Residing at No. 391, 2nd cross, 2nd main, 2nd stage, RMV Extention, Bengaluru – 560 058.
A company incorporated under the companies Act Having its registered office at No.481 – B, IV Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore – 560 058 Represented by its Director Mr. Faiz Ahmed
1
A company incorporated under the companies Act Having its registered office at No.481 – B,
IV Phase, Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore – 560 058 Represented by its Director
Mr. Faiz Ahmed . . . Applicants
Versus
A company incorporated under the companies Act Having its registered office at No.481 – B,
IV Phase, Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore – 560 058
Represented by its Director
Mr. Faiz Ahmed
: - PROCEEDINGS DATED12.11.2025 - :
Applicant by Shri Mudit Bohara, Adv.
Respondent No. 1 by Shri Sathyananda, Law Officer, a/w Shri K. Chandrasekar, Adv. – undertakes to file ‘Vakalathnama’ and the counter.
The ld counsel for the Defendant no. 1 seeks time to file the counter. Notices to defendant no 2 is dispensed since the lis’ is between the guarantor and the defendant Bank.
During course of hearing, the ld counsel for the defendant bank submits that the properties involved in the present lis’ are all belonging to defendant no. 2 company.
2
The Applicant is a guarantor and he has no semblance of rights over the properties for which the possession notice is challenged.
The contention of the ld counsel for the Bank that the Applicant herein is not the owner of the properties notified under the possession notice is not denied by the ld. counsel for the Applicant.
It is also submitted that by the ld. counsel for the defendant Bank, that the borrower company (defendant no 2) herein is under liquidation, after the resolution plan having resulted in failure.
The amount of debt involved is Rs. 1037,81,05,025.40 p.
Perused the prayers. The first prayer of the Applicant is to set aside the sale notice dated 20.11.2024. The same is highly barred under the limitation provided as per section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. Thus the first prayer is not maintainable. It is also found that the SA is consisting of multiple prayers.
The second prayer is to set aside the possession notice issued by the Bank dated 19.06.2025 which of course is within the period of limitation. While the matter was heard for the first time on 08.09.2025, the notices were issued on the second prayer only and the first prayer already stood dismissed.
Having been put to the knowledge of ownership about the properties involved in the present SA which is filed under section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act, this tribunal carefully perused the facts and the admitted factum of the ownership of these properties which all belonging to the defendant no. 2 company which is under liquidation.
The present Applicants who are the personal guarantors to the loan obtained by defendant no. 2 company, the present Applicants cannot be termed as an ‘aggrieved’ person to maintain the present SA.
3
The properties all belong to defendant No. 2 Company. Therefore, the present applicants cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the possession notice now challenged in the present SA. Consequently the SA stands disposed of by the following :-
: ORDER :
The SA filed by the Applicants challenging the possession notice issued by the defendant no. 1 Bank dated 19.06.2025 stands dismissed as not –maintainable in the peculiar facts of the case.
Parties to bear their own costs.
A copy of this order be communicated to the Applicants and the defendant No 1 as per the Rules.
Sd/-
(A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Steno who typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this 12th Day of November, 2025)
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether personal guarantors are 'aggrieved' persons entitled to challenge a possession notice directed against borrower properties.
Whether the application challenging the possession notice is maintainable given that the properties belong to a company under liquidation.
Whether the prayer to set aside the sale notice is barred by limitation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Naseer Ahmed
Smt. Nuzhat Aisha Naseer
Sri. Awaiz Ahmed
M/s. Scotts Plantations Private Limited
M/s. Coppers Coins Realty Private Limited
M/s. Canara Bank
A.S. JAYACHANDRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
