Dismissed

R P K Jeyakumar v. Axis Bank

DRT7 Apr 2025SA/232/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal entertained an application challenging a Magistrate order for possession of mortgaged property. The Tribunal held that the secured creditor complied with statutory procedures under the SARFAESI Act and dismissed the application, noting that Magistrate orders under Section 14 are not amenable to question.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Secured creditor is entitled to take physical possession of the secured asset.

R P K Jeyakumar versus Axis Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | DRT (2025)

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 232 of 2024

¶8

R.P.K. Jeyakumar, S/o. R.Padmanabhan, No.12/21, Rajalakshmi Kamarajar Street, Kanagasabai Colony, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Axis Bank, Arcot Plaza, Old No.38, New No.165 Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 017. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S. Girinadhan Counsel for respondent : Kvp. Deepak Raj

¶13

ORDER ON SA 232 /2024

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

¶15

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Order dated 23.02.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.792 of 2019 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai to take physical possession of mortgaged

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

property and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.71,26,668/-

¶20

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶21

3.1 The Applicant is in Construction Business and in the year 2005 applicant was a promoter and selling the flats in the Market. In order to promote the business the Applicant‟s Mother and Sister approached the bank for a sanction of Housing Loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) vide application dated 09.07.2012. Accordingly, the Respondent sanctioned a sum of Rs.83,41,360/- with the life insurance cover vide sanction letter dated 22/06/2022

¶22

3.2 It is contended by the Applicant that he has repaid an amount of Rs.1,05,539/- towards the loan amount, which is more than the sanctioned amount and has repaid the Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) regularly up to January 2016. Due to the policy changes by the Central Government of India in the Year 2014, the Applicant‟s business crippled and imposing of GST for the flats also declined the business in the Construction Sector.

¶23

3.3 The loan documents are provided to the respondent and have created mortgage of the scheduled mentioned property of the Applicant in favor of the bank, viz., all that piece and parcel of the land with building situated at Chennai District (previously Madras) Registration District, Subregistration District – Anna nagar, Chennai Village No.106, Koyambedu Kirama Natham, S.No.121, Plot No.21, in Kanagasabai Colony, measuring

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

an extent of one ground only (2400 sq.ft.) and a building constructed at 1841 sq.ft. thereon,

¶28

3.4 Applicant admits that he is liable to repay the debts and requested respondent bank to defer the coercive action under the SARFAESI Act. It is alleged that the bank forced the Applicant‟s mother and sister to sign on the blank papers with an intention to trap the Applicant under coercion.

¶29

3.5 The Applicant repaid a sum of Rs.66,74,897/- against the loan so far, hence approached the bank for One Time Settlement which the bank granted and directed to make a payment of Rs.71,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy one lakhs only) as against the outstanding due amount Rs.88,28,842.79/- and also directed the applicant to pay in Three Instalments.

¶30

3.6 Accordingly, the Applicant has paid Rs.10 Lakhs by way of cheque No.777501 dated 23.09.2016 and he was about to make a payment of 2^nd instalment Rs.20 lakhs on 25.10.2016. As the Central Government had announced demonetization his money got stuck with the buyers, hence he could not pay loan which resulted in delay in repayment of the 2^nd instalment.

¶31

3.7 Nevertheless, the bank has taken steps and issued Demand Notice dated 28.08.2017 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding an amount of Rs.69,15,929/- due as on 28.08.2017, stating that the

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

account become NPA (Non-Performing Asset) on 10.07.2017 and the Respondent has followed the procedures as contemplated under the Act.

¶36

3.8 After receiving the Section 13 (2) demand notice, the Applicant met the Respondent in person explained the situation and requested some time to pay the 2^nd instalment. Further applicant expressed his willingness to comply the “One Time Settlement” which was approved by the Respondent Bank. As there was no response from the bank even after an amicable settlement, the Applicant could not pay the 2^nd instalment due to demonetization.

¶37

3.9 It is submitted that the Applicant is shocked and surprised that respondent have issued the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 27.11.2017, yet again the Applicant approached the bank for One Time Settlement, gave letter to respondent dated 07.12.2019 and 13.01.2022 expressing his willingness to settle the amount by paying Rs.50 lakhs on or before 31.03.2022, but the respondent refused to accept the amount and the applicant is even ready to pay the amount for the bank after deducting exorbitant and penal rate.

¶38

3.10 It is avered that during the month of March 2024 the respondent agreed to receive Rs.50 lakhs as One Time Settlement, but suddenly the applicant received a caveat petition from the respondent on 05.04.2024 and aggrieved by the Order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 23.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.792 of 2019, the applicant has challenged the impugned order in the present S.A.

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

3.11 It is contended in the grounds that the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed Order by issuing fresh warrant dated 23.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.792/2019 which is unsustainable in law. The bank has not mentioned Section 13 (3-A) in the notice and the same is not mentioned in the Section 13(2) demand notice. Even in Section 13(2) Demand Notice there is no mention about the beneficial provision of the borrower nor making any representation nor raised their objections.

¶43

3.12 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held in Motilal Padmapet Sugar Mills Co ltd., that is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule, J., pointed out in Martindala v. Faulkner(3): “There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law: it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so”. Scrutton, also once said: “it is impossible to know all the statutory law.” But it was Lord Atkin who, as in so many other spheres, put the point in its proper context when he said in Evans v. Bartlem(1) the fact is that there is not and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law.

¶44

3.13 Further the applicant has relied on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Motilal Padmapet, to the fact is that there is not and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law, As he has not waived his right to make his representation and objections with regard to the demand notice issued by the Respondent Bank, prays to set

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

aside the Order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.792 of 2019 dated 23.02.2024 for issuing a fresh warrant.

¶49

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶50

4.1 The Respondent Bank has filed a detailed counter, countering all the objections raised by the Applicant in the S.A.

¶51

4.2 It is the case of the Bank that the Applicant along with his mother and sister had approached the bank requesting loan against the property which was sanctioned a sum of Rs.83,41,360/-, Vide Loan Agreement No.LPR008200524774.

¶52

4.3 The Applicant along with his mother and sister after entering into loan agreement agreed to repay the same in 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.1,05,539/- each. Further the applicant have deposited the original title deeds relating to property and created mortgage favoring the bank towards the credit facility.

¶53

4.4 The Applicant failed to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of the Loan and defaulted in repayment of scheduled dates. In fact the Applicant admits the non-payment of instalments towards the loan account and in spite of reminder calls and notices, the applicant failed in repayments, hence the account was classified as NPA (Non-Performing Asset) on 10/07/2017 as per the Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act and as per the RBI Guidelines

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

4.5 The bank has issued the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 28/08/2017 calling upon the applicants to discharge their legitimate liabilities for a sum of Rs.69,15,929/- due as on 28/08/2017. The demand notice sent to the Applicant and to his Mother has returned with endorsement unclaimed and the Demand Notice was sent to his Sister was served, the bank has produced the Return Covers, Acknowledgement Cards marked as R-1 and R-2 respectively.

¶58

4.6 The Demand Notice has been published in Trinity Mirror and Makkal Kural on 23/09/2017. Though, on receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice issued by the bank, they did not make any representation or objections, or in settling the outstanding amount in accordance with the Section 13(2) Demand Notice within 60 days from the date of issue of the Demand Notice.

¶59

4.7 The bank have completed the procedures in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, and the applicant did not clear the liable as demanded in Section 13(2) Demand Notice, hence the bank have issued the Possession Notice dated 27/11/2017 under the Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶60

4.8 The Possession Notice has been served on the Applicant and his sister and notice to his mother had been returned as Intimation Delivered. The Possession Notice is affixed on the property and it is also published on the two leading Newspapers, in The New Sunday Express and Dinamani on 02/12/2017. The bank has produced the Possession Notice,

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

Acknowledgement Cards / Returned covers, and Newspaper publication as R-4 to R-6 respectively.

¶65

4.9 The Respondent Bank has followed all the Rules and Guidelines of the RBI meticulously as contemplated under Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Subsequently the bank has filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, to take Physical Possession of the property which came to be numbered as Crl. M.p. No.792/2019 and the Hon‟ble Court has appointed Mr.S.P.Kannan as an Advocate Commissioner on 16/09/2019 to take the Physical Possession of the property.

¶66

4.10 Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the bank was not able to execute the Warrant, and hence they applied for a fresh warrant in the month of November 2023 and Advocate Commissioner Mr. S.P. Kannan had received the same in the month of February 2024. After receiving the warrant, Advocate Commissioner have intimated the Applicant about the Warrant and the steps to execute the warrant.

¶67

4.11 The Respondent Bank denies all the averments made in the para No.5(ii) and in Para No.5(c). The bank denies the averments that the applicant was not able to pay the Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) due to the change in policy decision made by Central Government of India in the year 2014. The Applicant made last payment in the year 30/06/2017 and even after 8 years, the Applicant did not come forward to settle the outstanding dues. The allegations that the bank had pressurized the

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

Applicant‟s Mother and Sister to sign in blank papers with an intention to trap Applicant is denied and the Applicant is put to the strict proof of the same, in fact Applicant‟s Mother and Sister have executed the loan and security documents only after knowing all the contents of the same.

¶72

4.12 The bank had agreed to receive Rs.71 lakhs as One Time Settlement as against the outstanding dues of Rs.88,28,842.79/- as on 30/11/2016 and also issued the OTS Letter dated 23/09/2016. However the applicant has failed to make the payment as per stipulated time, hence the Applicant‟s offer was cancelled and bank proceeded further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶73

4.13 The bank denies the contention that the bank did not receive the payments and applicant failed to pay the 2^nd and 3^rd installments as per the One Time Settlement. On the other hand, the bank had never refused to receive the payment from the Applicant where it had agreed to have a settlement of Rs.71,00,000/- in spite of passing of 8 years, and even after the issuance of the Demand Notice in the year 2017, the Applicant did not come forward to make payment.

¶74

4.14 The Hon‟ble Tribunal vide Order dated 23/04/20204 directed the Applicant to make a payment of Rs.10 lakhs on or before 24.04.2024 another payment Rs.10 lakhs on or before 10.05.2024 and another payment of Rs.15 lakhs on or before 31.05.2024 and the Applicant had obtained an Interim Order of Stay. However the applicant has not

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

complied with the entire conditions of the Order passed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal and has pad only Rs.30,00,000/- so far.

¶79

4.15 Further the bank has agreed to receive Rs.50,00,000/- as One Time Settlement, but applicant never accepted such proposal, on the other hand the Applicant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,91,477/- as per the Statements of Account produced by the bank produced at R-7

¶80

4.16 The loan accounts still stands in the NPA stage and the demand notice dated 28/08/2017 is neither recalled not set-aside, hence the bank has every right to proceed under the SARFAESI measures and prays for dismissal of the S.A.

¶81

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

¶82

5.1 It is an admitted fact that the applicant along with his mother and sister approached the Respondent Bank seeking for a financial assistance in the form of Power Loan to the extent of Rs.2,20,00,000/- (Two crore and twenty lakhs only) vide application dated 14/06/2012

¶83

5.2 After consideration of the request, the bank vide sanction letter dated 22/06/2012, sanctioned the Financial Assistance in the nature of Asset Power Loan of Rs.83,41,360/- which was to be repaid in 141 Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI) of Rs.1,04,170/-. The Applicant along with his mother and sister had accepted the Terms and Conditions of the sanction and had executed all the documents for a Power Loan of

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

Rs.83,41,360/- and had also created a mortgage in favor of the bank by deposit of title deeds towards the credit facility.

¶88

5.3 It is evidential and admitted fact that the Applicant defaulted in the repayments citing the change in the policy of the Central Government like Demonetization and the GST policy. As the applicant did not service the interest and pay the EMI as per the terms of the sanction, the account was classified as NPA on 10/07/2017 as per the Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act and as per the RBI Guidelines. After classification of the account as NPA, the bank has invoked the SARFAESI measures and issued the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 28/08/2017

¶89

5.4 It is seen that the Section 13(2) Demand Notice is issued clearly describing the nature of the loan availed; the terms of the repayment, detailed description of the mortgaged property as prescribed under Rule 3 of the SARFAESI Act. The bank had issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice, demanding repayment of Rs.69,15,929/- dues as on 28.08.2017 to be repaid within a period of 60 days from the dated of receipt of the notice.

¶90

5.5 The demand notice sent to the Applicant and to his mother has returned with endorsement unclaimed as per return covers and the Demand Notice was sent to his sister was served as per acknowledgement cards produced by the bank at Documents R-1 and R2 respectively.

¶91

5.6 As the demand notice was not served on the applicant and his mother, the respondent bank has published the contents of the demand notice in two newspapers in Trinity Mirror and Makkal Kural on

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

23/09/2017. Though, the applicant‟s sister received the demand notice did not make any representation or objections in settling the outstanding amount in accordance with the Section 13(2) Demand Notice within 60 days from the date of issue of the Demand Notice. The bank have completed the procedures in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, and the applicant did not clear the liable as demanded in Section 13(2) Demand Notice

¶96

5.7 The contention of the applicant that there is no mention of protection of his right in S.13[2] demand notice is a vague allegation made without any force of law or on fact. The applicant has relied on Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgement in Motilal Padmapet Sugar Mills Co Ltd., to content that there is no presumption that every person knows the law and alleges that the bank has not mentioned availability of S.13[3A] of the Act.

¶97

5.8 The specific allegation that there is no mention of S.13[3A] in the S.13[2] demand notice does not sustain either in law or on facts. In fact S.13[3A] is subsequent provision which follows after S.13[2] notice. For better appreciation S.13[3A] is reproduced as under:

¶98

Section 13 (3A):

¶99

If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower make any representation or raise any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and If the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate (within 15 days) of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower.

¶104

5.9 In fact there is no whisper why his sister even after the receipt of demand notice did not raise any objections or representation to the demand issued by the bank under S.13[2] notice highlights the fact that the applicant was silent and slept over his right to object to the demand made in s.13[2] notice. Having refused to claim/receive the S.13[2] demand notice and having not exercised now he relied upon the observation of the Apex Court that, S.13[3A] is beneficial provision to be exercised by the borrower is not availed for he not knowing the law. Infact after the receipt of S.13[2] demand notice, S.13[3A] is beenfical provision given by the statue to raise their objections or make representation to the demand made by the bank.

¶105

5.10 In the instant matter, the applicant and his mother have not claimed the S.13[2] demand notice, his sister who is also a party to the loan has received the notice has not come forward to raise any objection. Infact has failed to exercise their right under S.13[3A] of the Act. Hence the applciant‟s reliance on the statement that “It is impossible to know all the statutory law would not come to his rescue.

¶106

5.11 Further it is also clarified in the S.13[2] demand notice that in case the Applicant failed to make the payment within 60 days the bank shall be constrained to invoke the provisions of the Act on mortgaged property.

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

Additionally, the bank has also intimated about the restriction of the Applicant not to transfer the property by way of sale, lease or otherwise as mentioned in the sub section 13 of Section 13 without prior consent of the bank. Further the right to redeem the secured assets upon payment to is mentioned in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act which is communicated to the Applicant.

¶111

5.12 On perusal of the S.13[2] demand notice it is seen that respondent bank has given all the details in the S.13[2] demand notice as required under S.13[2] r/w Rule 3 of the Act and Rules. As the applicant did not exercise his under Section 13 (3A) now cannot have any grievance to the issuance of S.13[2] demand notice. After completion of 60 days, the bank has issued the Possession Notice dated 27/11/2017

¶112

5.13 Further the Possession Notice is sent by RPAD which is duly received by the Applicant and the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 27/11/2017 was received by the Applicant‟s Mother and Sister. Further in due compliance, the bank has also published the Possession notice in the two Leading News papers one in English Trinity Mirror and another in vernacular language Makkal Kural dated on 02/12/2017, the bank has completed with the procedure in issuing the Section 13(2) Demand Notice and the Section 13(4) Possession Notice as prescribed under the Acts & Rules.

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

5.14 As the Applicant, in spite of issuance of the statutory notices did not come forward to clear the liable, hence the bank has proceeded under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.

¶117

5.15 The contention that the Respondent Bank did not receive the 2^nd instalment of One Time Settlement, is countered by the Respondent bank contending that the Applicant did not come forwards to repay the amount as per the One Time Settlement proposals. It is an admitted fact by the Applicant that he had intended to clear the entire liability under the One Time Settlement and the bank had also considered the request and had granted OTS for an amount of Rs.71 Lakhs as against the due of Rs.83,41,360/- as on 30/11/2016 OTS Letter dated 23/09/2016

¶118

5.16 Though the OTS was accepted by the applicant, evidently the terms of repayment schedule as per the OTS letter could not be complied with and the bank also waited patiently and subsequently rejected the OTS.

¶119

5.17 It is also a matter of fact that the applicant though admitted to clear the outstanding amount as a One Time Settlement of Rs.50 lakhs for the loan amount, even after a OTS was granted by the Respondent Bank vide letter dated 23/09/2016, did not clear the loan which clearly reflects the intention of the Applicant is only to thwart the procedures initiated by the bank in recovering the loan due to them by enforcing the security available

¶120

5.18 The records of the case reflects that the bank approached the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai dated

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

23.02.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.792/2019 to take the Physical Possession of the property, the Hon‟ble Magistrate after due verification of the records and the documents produced by the Respondent Bank allowed Section 14 application and appointed Advocate Commissioner Mr. S.P. Kannan to take the Physical Possession of the property on 16/09/2019.

¶125

5.19 It is seen that the Advocate Commissioner could not execute the warrant due to Covid-19 pandemic and the hence the bank applied for a fresh warrant on November 2023 which came to be allowed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai by appointing Mr. S.P. Kannan as Advocate Commissioner in the February 2024. The respondent bank after receipt of the warrant, has intimated to the Applicant which the Applicant has impugned in the present S.A.

¶126

5.20 it is evident from the records produced by the bank that they have initiated the measures after classifying the account as NPA and issued the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 28/08/2017 in due compliance of the provisions of the act. Further as the applicant did not liquidated the liable even after the receipt of Section 13(2) Demand Notice, the bank has proceeded and have issued the Section 13(4) Possession Notice by adhering the due compliance of the procedure. As the Applicant did not liquidate the liabilities, the secured creditor has approached the Magistrate to take the Physical Possession of the property and the fresh warrant issued by the Advocate Commissioner Mr.S.P. Kannan is challenged in this S.A.

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

5.21 It is pertinent to note that the Applicant had received fresh warrant of Advocate Commissioner which is issued by Magistrate, and the respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures for the enforcement of security under the Act.

¶131

5.22 On the other hand, the applicant admitted the availing of the credit facilities and the creation of the mortgage property and the default in the repayment, further there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of the Demand Notice and the Possession Notice, in fact even for the receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice, the applicant has not raised any objections under Section 13(3A) and has not filed any representation to S.13[2] demand notice.

¶132

5.23 Even after the receipt of the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 27.11.2017 the applicant has not challenged the same within a period of 45 days, as prescribed in Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Even otherwise as per the Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI any adjudication of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate done under Section 14 cannot be called in question. The Section 14(3) is produced as under:

¶133

Section 14(3),

¶134

No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (any officer authorized by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate) done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority.

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

5.24 Upon the cumulative reading of the pleadings, on perusal of documents produced by both parties, it is clearly established that the bank as a secured creditor, as enforced the security availed to them as mandated under the SARFAESI Act. On the other hand the applicant has failed to point out any illegality in the measures initiated by bank. Though applicant has challenged Section 14 order has failed out to make out a case for interference of this Tribunal in the Section 14 order dated 23.02.2024 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.792 of 2019.s

¶139

5.25 For the foregoing Reasons the present S.A. is only to be dismissed, accordingly SA stands dismissed. Interim order granted if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶140

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

¶141

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 07^th day of April, 2025)

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶147

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	Fresh warrant is issued by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.792/2019 23.02.2024	A-1
2.	Asset Power sanction letter 22.06.2012	A-2
3.	Settlement Letter 23.09.2016	A-3
4.	Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. 28.08.2017	A-4
5.	Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 27.11.2017	A-5
6.	Letter sent by the Applicant to the Respondent 07.12.2019	A-6
7.	Letter sent by the Applicant to the Respondent 13.01.2022	A-7
8.	Caveat filed by the Respondent received by the Applicant on 05.04.2024	A-8

¶148

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶149

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	Demand Notice 28.08.2017	R-1
2.	Returned Covers/ Acknowledgement Card 23.09.2017	R-2
3.	Paper Publication of Demand Notice in the Makkal Kural & Trinity Mirror 23.09.2017	R-3
4.	Possession Notice 27.11.2017	R-4
5.	Acknowledgement Card & Returned covers	R-5
6.	Paper Publication of Possession Notice in the New Sunday Express and Dinamani	R-6

¶150

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶151

All that piece and parcel of the land with building situated at Registration District of Chennai and Sub-Registration District of Anna Nagar, situated at Village No.106 Koyambedu grama Natham, Plot No.21, Kanagasabai

SA No.232 /2024 (C)

07.04.2025

Colony, Koyambedu, comprised in S.No.121, measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft. and a building constructedat 1841 sq.ft. and bounded on the

¶156

North by: Plot No.2 belongs to Mr.U.sadasivam;

¶157

South by: Yadaval Street,

¶158