Dismissed

S. Subramanian v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT20 Jun 2025SA/268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed four securitization applications challenging Section 14 possession orders and sale notices issued under the SARFAESI Act. Upholding the validity of the recovery measures and ruling that Section 14 is ministerial, the court held the proceedings legally compliant.

What did the court decide?

The four secured applications were dismissed; the Section 14 order and possession measures were upheld as valid and legal.

S. Subramanian versus Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶2

20.06.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.08 of 2022,

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.111 of 2024 SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 268 of 2024 &

¶9

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.835 of 2024

¶10

Mr. S. SUBRAMANIAN, S/o. R.Srinivasan No.17, Gandhi Street, Vanuvampet Chennai – 600 091

¶11

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/s. J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd., No.40/1A, 4th Floor, Basappa Complex, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru – 560 001 … Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s S. Anuradha Balaji Counsel for Respondent : M/s Surya Teja SS Nalla

¶14

: - COMMON ORDER ON SA No. 08 of 2022, SA No.111 of 2024 SA No.268 of 2024 and SA No.835 of 2024 - :

¶15

The present Securitization Applications [SA] are filed on 30.12.2021 (SA No.08/2022), 12.02.2024 (SA No.1111/2024), 29.04.2024 (SA No.268/2024) and 19.11.2024 (SA No.835/2024) under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for

¶16

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶17

20.06.2025

¶18

¶19

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].

¶20

S.A. No.08/2022 is filed impugning the Section 14 order dated 08.11.2021 passed by Chief District Magistrate and District Collector at Chengalpattu in RC.229/2018/M4 pursuant to measures initiated by the respondent financial institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,58,30,484/-

¶21

S.A. No.111/2024 is filed impugning the measures taken by respondent financial institution alleged by taking physical possession by the Revenue Inspector, Pallavaram Taluk, pursuant to the order under Section 14 dated 08.11.2021 passed by Chief District Magistrate and District Collector at Chengalpattu in RC.229/2018/M4 in the measures initiated by the respondent financial institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,58,30,484/-.

¶22

S.A. No.268/2024 is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 20.03.2024 issued by respondent financial institution scheduling sale to 03.06.2024 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,19,91,167/-.

¶23

S.A. No.835/2024 is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 28.10.2024 issued by respondent financial institution scheduling sale to 02.12.2024 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,14,33,570/-.

¶24

Applicant is the borrower, has challenged the S.14 order dated 08.11.2021 and physical possession taken (in SA 08/2022 and SA

¶25

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶26

¶27

20.06.2025

¶28

No.111/2024) and the two Sale Notices dated 20.03.2024 and 28.102.2024 in SAs 268/2024 and 835/2024, raising the identical contentions in each SA’s to which the respondent has filled detailed counters along with supporting documents.

¶29

Before proceeding further, it is apt to mention that the prayer as sought for in the 4 SA’s has become infructuous and is only to be dismissed in limine as infructuous. However, in order to put quietus to the same contentions being raised in challenging each and every measure taken by the secured creditor, the Tribunal feels it to apt to consider the main contentions in respect of the loan, mortgage and the measures initiated by the 1^st respondent under the SARFAESI Act.

¶30

It is palpable from the records that the Applicant M/s. Forge Tools is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor Sri. S. Subramanian, are in the business of manufacturing and exporting automotive parts like crank shaft, connecting rod shifter fork, precision gear etc. and other forged products.

¶31

The Applicant Originally availed credit facilities from Karnataka Bank who has assigned the debt u/s 5 of the SARFAESI Act to the present 1^st respondent vide Assignment Deed dated 15.12.2014 u. Thus the 1^st respondent has stepped into to shoes of original assignor and have proceeded in further measures under the Act.

¶32

The applicant availed an Overdraft Facility of Rs. 75,00,000/-

¶33

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶34

20.06.2025

¶35

¶36

(Rupees Seventy-Five Lakhs Only) and Term Loan Rs. 20,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) and Rs.2,08,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Eight Thousand only) towards non funded credit facility, in the year 2011. The said facilities were renewed and enhanced to Rs. 1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty-Five Lakhs Only) on 01.08.2012.

¶37

As security towards the credit facilities, the applicant executed all necessary loan documents along with hypothecation of machineries, stock in trade and book debts & General Power of Attorney for book debts dated 01.08.2012.

¶38

Additionally, the credit facilities are guaranteed by Smt. Lakshmi Vasan (now deceased) [mother of the applicant] and Mrs. Rathna Subramanian, wife of the applicant to the credit facilities and mortgaged the properties as collateral securities forwards the credit facilities by deposit of title deeds on 07.06.1995 which are extended to PS SSI TL facility on 07.09.2011 & 01.08.2012 and the same are secured assets. The mortgage is duly registered before the Central Registry CERSAI report dated 09.03.2012 and modified on 04.12.204 and 22.12.2014 as per additional documents produced by respondent.

¶39

In fact there is no dispute about availing of credit facilities, mortgage of the properties as security and the acknowledgment of debts by the Applicant vide letter dated 30.04.2014. However, Applicant contends that there is no mortgage created and disputes the mortgage.

¶40

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶41

20.06.2025

¶42

¶43

As the applicant was irregular in repayment and in serving the loan accounts as per the sanctioned terms resulted in classification of the account as NPA on 27.09.2013 as per RBI circulars. The Karnataka Bank [Original lender] recalled the loan and invoked the personal guarantees vide letter dated 12.11.2013. Consequent to classification of accounts as NPA, the respondent has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued 13(2) Demand Notice dated 06.05.2014 to the borrower, guarantor and mortgagors demanding the entire outstanding amount due of Rs. 1,69,51,774.73/- with further interest and other cost to be prepaid within a period of 60 days.

¶44

On receipt of S.13[2] demand notice, the Applicant raised objections to S.13[2] demand notice vide letter dated 05.06.2014 admitting the loan availed, the mortgaged created favoring the respondent , however sought time to regularize the account and sought conversion of credit facility to term loan. The secured creditor replied to the objections raised under S.13[3A] vide its letter dated 10.06.2014. Thus it is evident that the secured creditor after classify the account as NPA, has issued S.13[2] demand notice, the service of which is not disputed. The objections as raised under S.13[3A] is duly replied by the respondent establishing the due compliance of issuance of S.13[2] notice as required under the Act and Rules.

¶45

As applicant did not liquidated the entire outstanding amount due,

¶46

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶47

20.06.2025

¶48

¶49

the secured creditor proceeded further in issuing Possession Notice dated 24.07.2015 and took symbolic possession of the Schedule Property which came to be challenged by the applicant in SA No. 323 of 2015 questioned the validity of the mortgage created by the Applicant. The SA No.323/2015 came to be allowed vide proceeding dated 28.09.2016 setting aide S.13[4] notice as the respondent had failed to establish due service and compliance of S.13[4].

¶50

Though the SA No.323/2015 came to be allowed, surprisingly the applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai in RA(SA) No. 99 of 2017 challenging the order dated 28.09.2016 in SA No. 323 of 2015 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal contending that the Tribunal did not consider whether there is valid mortgage and further extension.

¶51

Per contra, the respondent vehemently relies upon the Order in SA 323/2015 to contend that the validity of mortgage was considered by the Tribunal.

¶52

On perusal of documents it is evident that the applicant had mortgaged the properties as security and executed the memorandum of deposit of title deeds which constitutes secured asset favoring the respondent. Further the charge is registered before the Central Registry as per the CERSAI Report filed.

¶53

The applicant, after mortgaging the property, have extended the mortgage to the enhanced facilities, cannot now contend that the original

¶54

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶55

20.06.2025

¶56

¶57

mortgage is not executed. After executed all the documents, MOTD, extension cannot contradict their own statement.

¶58

It is not the case of the applicant that they have not mortgaged the property and are in custody of original documents pertaining the property even today, have failed to produce the same before this Tribunal in support of their contentions. After availing the credit facilities they are gainsaying their own statements to suit the need of the hour which is an afterthought. Additionally no prudent man would hand over the title deeds to any one without any reason especially to an financial institution.

¶59

The Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai vide its order dated 07.02.2018 in RA(SA) No. 99 of 2017 dismissed the appeal categorically upholding the validity of the security interest created in favor of the Respondent herein.

¶60

Not contented by the Order of the Hon’ble DRAT, the applicant invoked Writ jurisdiction before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP No. 8805 of 2018 seeking for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in R.A.(S.A) 99/2017, and to quash the same. The Hon’ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 26.06.2018 dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn. The applicant contributes the reason for the withdrawal of writ petition based on respondent mention about the pendency of OA No.311/2016 cannot not sustain. It is prudent on the party to lis to decide to continue with the matter or not and no submissions of other side can influence the party who had preferred a case. It is evident

¶61

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶62

¶63

20.06.2025

¶64

the applicant without any seeking for any liberty or reserving their right has withdrawn the writ petition.

¶65

As the respondent had initiated the measure proceeded further under the measure and obtained an S.14 order dated 08.11.2021 from the Ld. District Collector, Kancheepuram which subsequently was transferred to District Collector, Chengalpet in view of bifurcation of the Districts.

¶66

The District Collector, Chengalpattu allowed the petition vide order dated 08.11.2021 directing the Tahsildar, Pallavaram to take and handover the physical possession of the Schedule Property to the secured creditor.

¶67

The respondent obtained an amended Order for rectification of clerical error in the Order passed by the District Collector, Chengalpattu, which came to be amended vide order dated 11.04.2023. Consequent to the Order dated 11.04.2023, the revenue inspector has taken physical possession of the secured assets by preparing the panchnama on 29.12.2023 and handed over the same to the Authorized Officer. Further the respondent issued a Possession Intimation Notice dated 29.12.2023 to the Applicant and published the same in newspapers on 03.01.2024.

¶68

The secured creditor has obtained an Order S.14 of the Act and the Ld. District Collector after due verification of the application affidavit and the documents produced allowed the S.14 application directing the Revenue Inspector to take physical possession.

¶69

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶70

¶71

20.06.2025

¶72

Now considering the challenge to S.14 Order, it is appropriate to mention the declaration of The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments has held that the power of Designated Court under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, 2002 is ministerial and non- adjudicatory in nature and the process to be followed under Section 14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind.

¶73

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra , held that Court is only required to verify the affidavit of Secured Creditor filed in pursuance of the proviso to Section 14 and nothing more. The Bombay High Court judgement is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgement dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶74

“Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the matter once all the requirements Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured

¶75

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶76

¶77

20.06.2025

¶78

assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal”.

¶79

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak

¶80

Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. , held that while exercising power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, even the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction and/or District Magistrate and/or even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between secured creditor and debtor.”

¶81

Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act states that no action taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (or any officer authorized by them) under S.14 can be challenged in court or before any other authority. Thus the provision ensures that the action taken under S.14 is final and not subject to further review. Thus, it is held that the S. 14 order passed by the Ld. District Collector is after due consideration of the compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix] is only an execution order where no adjudication is required.

¶82

In the instant case it is undisputed fact that the respondent creditor has taken physical possession of the property on 29.12.2023. The SA No.8/2022 challenging the Order dated 08.11.2021 in Crl.RP No.229/2018 and SA No.111/2024 challenging the action of respondent taking physical possession is rendered as infructuous. Furthermore as the respondent has established the due compliances of the procedures as mandated in

¶83

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶84

20.06.2025

¶85

¶86

obtaining the Order dated 08.11.2021, the Tribunal concludes that the Order passed by Ld. District Magistrate in Rc.229/2018/M4 is in accordance with S.14 of the act and the same is held as valid and legal Order passed in accordance with the Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶87

The secured creditor after obtaining the physical possession of properties issued E- auction sale notice dated 20.3.2024 scheduling the property to be sold on 03.06.2024 with clear 30 days’ notice and e-auction sale notice dated 28.10.2024 scheduling the property to be sold on 02.12.2024. The applicant invoked writ jurisdiction in challenging the Sale Notice dated 20.03.2024 filed WP No. 11351 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Madras High Court without exhausting the statutory remedy available to them. It is not the case of the applicant that they were ignorant of the statutory remedy under S.17 of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 23.04.2024 dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶88

Subsequent to dismissal of writ petition the applicant filed SA No. 268 of 2024 and the Tribunal granted stay of sale based on the undertaking by the applicant to comply with any conditional orders. As the Tribunal granted an interim order of stay on 24.05.2024, the scheduled sale on 03.06.2024 did not fructify in light of the interim conditional order passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal inspite there being interested bidders for the scheduled sale.

¶89

The Applicant complied only with the first condition of the interim

¶90

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶91

20.06.2025

¶92

¶93

order and failed to comply with the second condition of the interim order. Yet again the Applicant having failed to comply with the interim order dated 24.05.2024 challenged the interim order dated 24.05.2024 before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP No. 16103 of 2024, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide its order dated 02.01.2025.

¶94

It is seen from records that the applicant is frustrating the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor in challenging each measures before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and also challenging the same before this Tribunal. Infact applicant is forum shopping and is successful in obtaining an interim order to drag on the proceedings, not complying the conditional order is only frustrating and dragging the matter without any bonafides.

¶95

The applicant has also attempted to blemish the procedures taken by the respondent with Contempt action alleging that the Respondent committed contempt of the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s order dated 26.06.2018 in WP No. 8805 of 2018 by issuing the auction sale notice dated 20.03.2024. However, the Hon’ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 24.07.2024 dismissed the Contempt Petition No. 1440 of 2024 as withdrawn. Thus it is clear that the applicant invokes the Writ Jurisdiction gains time in restraining the respondent in not proceeding further under the Act and after a while withdraws the writ petition alleging the wrong submission of the respondent and threat of contempt is nothing but an act of frustration shown in not honoring the repayment of the loan

¶96

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶97

¶98

20.06.2025

¶99

amount due to the secured creditor.

¶100

It is manifest from the records that the Respondent issued the 30 days Sale Notice dated 20.03.2024 under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 scheduling the property to be sold on 03.06.2024, the e-auction sale notice dated 24.09.2024 under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, scheduling sale to 02.12.2024. Yet again the applicant obtained conditional interim order dated 27.11.2024 of stay which was not complied. Though there were bidders, the sale did not materialize in view of the interim order passed by this Tribunal.

¶101

On cumulative examination of facts, pleadings and documents relied upon by both the parties, it is evident that the Respondent has complied with the procedure in initiating the measures under the Act. In fact the respondent as secured creditor has established the due compliances of the procedures in the measures taken as prescribed under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶102

On the other hand the applicant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the measures invoked by the Respondent by enforcing the security available to them under the Act. It is pertinent to note that the outstanding debt as on 31.03.2025 is a large sum of Rs.5,11,94,188/which is a colossal sum of public money which the respondent is entitled to recover.

¶103

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶104

20.06.2025

¶105

¶106

For the forgoing reasons the four SA’s 08/2022, 111/2024, 268/2024 and 835/2024 are dismissed upholding the measures taken by the respondent under the Act in compliance of procedures as required under the Act and Rule made thereunder.

¶107

Let this Common Order be kept in each SA which shall be the Final Order of the respective SA’s.

¶108

Interim order granted if any stands vacated. Pending IA/s if any are disposed of in terms of this Order. No order as to cost.

¶109

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶110

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

¶111

(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20^th day of June, 2025)

¶112

ANNEXURES

¶113

The documents relied on by applicant and respondent are same in all SAs. Hence documents filed by both parties in the last SA, i.e., SA No.835 of 2024 are consolidatedly produced below:

¶114

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶115

Sl.	Description of Documents	Docume
No.		nts No.
1.	Impugned Sale Notice issued by the Respondent	A-1

¶116

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶117

20.06.2025

¶118

¶119

	dated 28.10.2024.
2.	Registration Certificate of M/s. Forge Tools dated 25.05.1982.	A-2
3.	Demand notice under Section 13(2) issued by M/s. Karnataka Bank Limited dated 06.05.2014.	A-3
4.	Notice to deliver possession of secured asset issued by the Respondent dated 16.07.2015.	A-4
5.	Legal Notice issued by the Applicant to the Respondent dated 21.07.2015.	A-5
6.	Reply e-mail by the Respondent to the Legal Notice dated 21.07.2015.	A-6
7.	Affidavit in WP No.22418 of 2015 filed by the Applicant dated 23.07.2015.	A-7
8.	Possession Notice issued by the Respondent dated 24.07.2015.	A-8
9.	Affixture of Possession Notice of the Secured assets.	A-9
10.	Order in WP No.22418 of 2015 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 27.07.2015.	A-10
11.	Sarfaesi Application is SA. No.323/2015 on the file of the DRT-III at Chennai dated 10.08.2015.	A-11
12.	Insurance Policy issued by The New India Assurance Company Limited in favour of the Respondent dated 14.08.2015.	A-12
13.	Proceedings of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT- III, Chennai in SA 323/2015 dated 12.08.2015.	A-13
14.	Counter Affidavit filed by the 2^ndRespondent in SA.323/2015 dated 29.10.2015.	A-14
15.	OA.No.311/2016 filed by M/s. JMFARC dated 10.03.2016.	A-15
16.	Letter by SIB and Associates, Surveyors of M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., dated 27.04.2016.	A-16
17.	Common counter Affidavit filed by the Karnataka Bank Ltd., dated 09.06.2016.	A-17
18.	Final Order of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT- III in SA.323/2015 dated 28.09.2016.	A-18
19.	Proceedings of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT- III, Chennai in O.A.No.311/2016 dated 30.09.2016 to 08.11.2019.	A-19
20.	Letter by the Section Officer, DRAT (Southern Region) addressed to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Egmore Branch dated 22.02.2018.	A-20
21.	Final Order passed by the Hon’ble Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai in R.A.(S.A).99/2017 dated 07.02.2018.	A-21

¶120

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶121

20.06.2025

¶122

¶123

22.	Final Order of Hon’ble High Court in WP No.8805/2018 and WMP No.10676/2018 dated 26.06.2018.	A-22
23.	E-mail by the Applicant addressed to the Applicant dated 10.10.2018.	A-23
24.	E-mail by the Respondent addressed to the Applicant dated 11.10.2018.	A-24
25.	Order passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Chengalpet in R.C.No.229/2018/M4 dated 08.11.2021.	A-25
26.	Letter by the Deputy General Manager, First Appellate Authority, The New India Assurance Company Limited addressed to the Applicant dated 24.03.2023.	A-26
27.	Intimation of Possession taken under Section 14 of Sarfaesi Act issued by the Respondent dated 01.01.2024.	A-27
28.	Memo filed by the Petitioner before this Hon’ble Tribunal dated 04.01.2024.	A-28
29.	E-mail by the Petitioner addressed to the Respondent dated 06.01.2024.	A-29
30.	Reply by the Respondent to the Petitioner’s e-mail dated 06.01.2024 dated 09.01.2024.	A-30
31.	Memo filed by applicant undertaking payment of Rs.25,00,000/-dated 26.02.2024.	A-31
32.	Proceedings of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in SA.No.111/2024 dated 28.02.2024.	A-32
33.	E-mail sent by Counsel of M/s. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction company M/s. DUA Associates dated 05.03.2024.	A-33
34.	E-mail sent by Counsel Mr. Sethuraman, Advocate in reply to M/s. DUA Associates dated 16.03.2024.	A-34
35.	Memo in proof of payment of Rs.25,00,000/- filed by applicant dated 20.03.2024.	A-35
36.	Contempt Notice issued by the Applicant addressed to the Respondent dated 25.03.2024.	A-36
37.	Contempt Petition in No.1440/2024 filed by the Petitioner before High Court of Madras dated 08.04.2024.	A-37
38.	Reply Legal Notice by the Respondent dated 10.04.2024.	A-38
39.	Rejoinder by the Applicant to the Reply dated 10.04.2024 dated 12.04.2024.	A-39
40.	Order in WP.No.11351 of 2024 passed by the	A-40

¶124

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶125

20.06.2025

¶126

¶127

	Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 23.04.2024.
41.	Sarfaesi Application in SA.268/2024 on the file of DRT-3 Chennai dated 29.04.2024.	A-41
42.	Interim Order in SA.268/2024, on the file of DRT- 3, Chennai dated 24.05.2024.	A-42
43.	Memo of Compliance filed by the Applicant dated 31.05.2024.	A-43
44.	Interim Order in WP.No.16103/2024 by the Hon’ble High Court Madras dated 19.06.2024.	A-44
45.	Letter of OTS submitted by the Applicant to the Respondent dated 29.06.2024.	A-45

¶128

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶129

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Docume nts No.
1.	Enhancement of Overdraft Facilities by the Karnataka Bank Limited (Assignor Bank) dated 14.02.2011.	R-1
2.	Term Loan Agreement entered between the Applicant, Guarantor and the Assignor Bank dated 07.09.2011.	R-2
3.	Undertaking given by the Applicant with respect to the Term Loan facility dated 07.09.2011.	R-3
4.	Record of mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the Schedule Property by the Applicant dated 07.09.2011.	R-4
5.	Agreement for loans secured by policies, shares, government securities etc. dated 07.09.2011.	R-5
6.	Advances against deposit by the Applicant and the Guarantor dated 07.09.2011.	R-6
7.	Hypothecation Agreement of machineries, stock in trade and book debts dated 13.09.2011.	R-7
8.	Renewal and Enhancement of Overdraft Facilities by the Assignor Bank dated 01.08.2012.	R-8
9.	Undertaking given by the Applicant with respect to the Renewed Overdraft Loan facility dated 01.08.2012.	R-9
10.	Hypothecation Agreement of machineries stock in trade and book debts for the renewed OD dated 01.08.2012.	R-10
11.	Record of mortgage by deposit of title deed of the Schedule Property by the Applicant for the renewed OD dated 01.08.2012.	R-11

¶130

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶131

¶132

20.06.2025

¶133

12.	Agreement for loans secured by policies, shares, government securities etc. dated 01.08.2012.	R-12
13.	Advances against deposit by the Applicant and the Guarantor dated 01.08.2012.	R-13
14.	General Power of Attorney for book debts issued by the Applicant dated 01.08.2012.	R-14
15.	Letter issued by the Assignor Bank recalling the loan and invoking the personal guarantees dated 12.11.2013.	R-15
16.	Letter issued by the Applicant and the guarantor acknowledging the debt to the Assignor Bank dated 30.04.2014.	R-16
17.	Demand Notice issued u/s.13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act by the Assignor Bank dated 06.05.2014.	R-17
18.	Objections raised by the applicant to the Demand Notice issued by the Assignor Bank dated 05.06.2014.	R-18
19.	Reply issued by the Assignor Bank to the objections raised by the Applicant dated 10.06.2014.	R-19
20.	The Registered Assignment Deed assigning the debts of the Applicant from Assignor Bank to the Respondent dated 15.12.2014.	R-20
21.	Possession Notice issued by the Respondent U/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 24.07.2015.	R-21
22.	Final order passed by the Hon’ble DRT-III in the SA.323 of 2015 filed by the Applicant dated 28.09.2016.	R-22
23.	Final Order passed by the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai in RA(SA) No.99 of 2017 filed by the Applicant dated 07.02.2018.	R-23
24.	Final Order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP.No.8805 of 2018 filed by the Applicant dated 26.06.2018.	R-24
25.	The order passed by the District Collector, Chengalpattu District inCrl. R.P.No.229/2018/M4 U/s 14 of SARAESI Act, 2002 dated 08.11.2021.	R-25
26.	Amended order passed by the District Collector, Chengalpattu District in Crl. R.P. No.229/2018/M4 u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 11.04.2023.	R-26
27.	Possession Notice issued by the Respondent to the Applicant dated 29.12.2023.	R-27
28.	Publication of the Possession Notice in the Newspaper by the Respondent dated 03.01.2024.	R-28
29.	Sale Notice issued by the Respondent dated	R-29

¶134

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶135

¶136

20.06.2025

¶137

30.	20.03.2024. Publication of Sale Notice in Times of India by Respondent dated 26.04.2024.	R-30
31.	Final order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP.No.11351 of 2024 dated 23.04.2024.	R-31
32.	Conditional order passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in SA.268 of 2024 dated 24.05.2024.	R-32
33.	Settlement letter issued by the Applicant dated 29.06.2024.	R-33
34.	Reply letter issued by the Respondent to the letter dated 29.06.2024 dated 03.07.2024.	R-34
35.	Settlement letters issued by the Applicant dated 03.07.2024.	R-35
36.	Reply letter issued by the Respondent to the letter dated 03.07.2024 dated 04.07.2024.	R-36
37.	Settlement letter issued by the Applicant dated 09.07.2024.	R-37
38.	Reply letter issued by the Respondent to the letter dated 09.07.2024 dated 11.07.2024.	R-38
39.	Final order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CONT P. No.1440 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024.	R-39
40.	Publication of Sale Notice under Rule 8(6) of the SIE Rules, 2002 in South India Times by Respondent dated 24.09.2024.	R-40
41.	Publication of Sale Notice under Rule 8(6) of the SIE Rules, 2002 in Madras Mani by Respondent dated 24.09.2024.	R-41
42.	Sale Notice issued under Rule 8(6) of the SIE Rules, 2002 to the Applicant by Respondent dated 24.09.2024.	R-42
43.	Publication of Sale Notice in Newspaper (English & Vernacular) by the Respondent dated 28.10.2024.	R-43
44.	Impugned Sale Notice affixed on the conspicuous part of the scheduled immovable property dated 28.10.2024.	R-44
45.	Impugned Sale Notice under Rule 9(1) of the SIE Rules, 2002 issued by the Respondent dated 28.10.2024.	R-45
46.	Final order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.16103 of 2024 dated 02.01.2025.	R-46

¶138

SAs 08/22, 111/24, 268/24 & 835/24

¶139

¶140

20.06.2025

¶141

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶142

All that piece and parcel of land admeasuring 7522 sq.ft., and industrial building constructed thereon bearing D.No.3, Plot No.18A (Eastern Portion), comprised in Survey No.354/6, 7, 11 and 355/3, 4 situated at Boopathy Nagar, Keelkattalai Village, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and the land being.

¶143

Boundaries on

¶144

North By : Land of Kadirvelu Mudaliar and Lokambal South By : 20 Feet Road East By : Plot No.18-B Belongs to D. Bhagaram West By : Land in Plot No.18-A sold to R. Srinivasan

¶145

Standing in the name of S. Subramanian.

¶146

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

S. Subramanian v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Subramanian v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

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

Punjab National Bank versus Mother Graphics

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Snn Travels

Canara Bank versus M/S Mathan Leather Company

Indian Bank versus Viivaan Foods

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Alumalai Ayyan Traders and Another

Sri Laxmi Balaji Enterprise and Two Others versus Indian Overseas Bank