Dismissed

N Gurumurthy v. Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

DRT5 Dec 2025SA/291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitization application challenging a Section 14 possession order and subsequent sale of mortgaged property, the Debt Recovery Tribunal held that Section 14 powers are ministerial and non-adjudicatory. The court dismissed the applicants' petition, validating the bank's possession and sale measures despite pending appeals, noting the applicants failed to point out lawful violations.

What did the court decide?

Present Securitization Application dismissed. S.13(4) possession notice and S.14 order held as valid measures. Pending IAs disposed of.

N Gurumurthy versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 05^th day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 291 of 2023

¶8

Mr. N. Gurumurthy S/o Late Nagasubramaniam No.186, Vysial Street, Pondicherry 605 001.

¶9

Mrs. G. Anbesangeetha W/o Mr. N. Gurumurthy No.186, Vysial Street, Pondicherry 605 001. …Applicants

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, CANARA BANK Puducherry Bazaar Branch, No.122-124, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry 605 001. …Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Ms. C. Bhalakumaran Counsel for Respondent : Mr. R. Jagadeesan

¶14

ORDER ON SA 291 /2023

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section

¶16

[1] of S.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and

¶17

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].

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Section 14 order dated 11.04.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.10400 of 2022 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and the outstanding amount due as per Section 14 order is Rs.97,71,759/-

¶22

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶23

3.1 Applicants submits that they have availed a Trade Loan from erstwhile Syndi1cate Bank at Puducherry in the year 2011 and also executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds. Further the applicants have cleared the loan and also availed additional loan of Rs.40,00,000/which they have utilized only an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the remaining amount were kept in the O.D. Accounts of the applicants. In the year 2016 the applicants approached the respondent to withdraw the balance amount and they were informed that only Rs.1,00,000/- is remaining in the 1^st applicant’s loan account and there is no balance in 2^nd applicant’s loan account. Therefore, a sum of Rs.34,50,000/- has been defrauded by the respondent.

¶24

3.2 In fact, the respondent has arranged Rs.9,00,000/- with an assurance to settle the balance amount of Rs.25,50,000/-. Though the 1^st applicant has registered a criminal complaint against the bank officials before the Inspector of Police of Grand Bazaar Police station on 03.02.2019 in Crime No.13 of 2019 under Section 409, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. After investigation, the forgery and Charge Sheet No.133/2020 is charged before

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

the Hon’ble CJM, Puducherry under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the bank officials.

¶29

3.3 The pending proceedings before the Hon’ble CJM, Puducherry has been transferred to the file of Special Judge (Special Court for PC Act cases) at Puducherry, further the bank officials of Syndicate Bank were Accused under Crime No.13 of 2019 for the 1^st applicant’s complaint. The Syndicate Bank by way of amalgamation has merged with Canara Bank at Puducherry and all the accounts, assets were taken over by the Canara Bank.

¶30

3.4 Further, the respondent bank had issued Section 13(4) Possession Notice to the applicants, though the applicants had informed about the criminal proceedings against the bank officials and the respondent bank vide letter dated 23.12.2020 had cancelled the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 14.12.2020 and 23.12.2020. In fact, the applicant has filed an SA No.16 of 2021 before Debt Recovery Tribunal - III under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶31

3.5 The Debt Recovery Tribunal - III dismissed the SA No.16 of 2021 without considering the cancellation of Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 14.12.2020. Hence, the applicants have filed an A.I.R.No.11 of 2022 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which was posted to 12.06.2023. The applicants also deposited a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to show their bonafides as directed by Debt Recovery Tribunal – III, Chennai.

¶32

3.6 In fact, the applicant has also filed a complaint before the State Consumer Commissioner at Puducherry in C.C.No.2 of 2022 for

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

compensation against the respondent bank officials. The respondent bank has failed to produce reply against the complaint in C.C.No.2 of 2022 and the same is still pending in State Consumer Commission.

¶37

3.7 The appeal filed by applicant in A.I.R.No.11 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has become infructuous and the respondent also misled the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Puducherry by suppressing the pendency of the appeal in A.I.R.No.11 of 2022 before the DRAT which is in abuse of process of law.

¶38

3.8 In the grounds it is contended that the respondent is ineligible to file a petition under Section 14, when an appeal before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is pending. Hence the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is illegal and contrary to Section 14(1) of the Act.

¶39

3.9 However, the petition filed by the respondent is allowed on 11.04.2023 and the applicant’s property can be taken by the respondent at any time, though the applicant has filed the present SA and prays to set aside the order passed on 11.04.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.10400 of 2022 before the CJM, Puducherry.

¶40

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶41

4.1 The respondent bank has filed a detailed counter, inter alia contending that the allegations made in the present SA are absolutely false and vehemently denied by the respondent bank. The applicants have filed

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

various applications before this Tribunal and never denied the acceptance of Rs.9.00 lakhs by the respondent bank.

¶46

4.2 Further the applicants have repeatedly alleged that the appeal before Hon’ble DRAT in A.I.R. No.11 of 2022 is pending and the same was suppressed by respondent bank in their petition under Section 14 is totally as the A.I.R. is not numbered as appeal and the waiver application filed by the applicant in IA No.433 of 2022 is still pending and there is no stay granted by the Hon’ble DRAT in the appeal.

¶47

4.3 In fact, the applicants had sought time in IA No.433 of 2022 before the Hon’ble DRAT on 14.03.2023, 12.06.2023 and 31.07.2023 and the IA is posted to 21.09.2023. Hence the contention raised by the applicants that the respondent has misled the Ld. CJM, Puducherry by suppressing the pendency of appeal in A.I.R.No.11 of 2022 in DRAT, cannot sustain and the Hon’ble CJM, Puducherry has passed the impugned order as per the law.

¶48

4.4 Further the property at Vysial Street belonging to the applicants which was mortgaged to the respondent bank was sold on 20.09.2022 for Rs.1,58,50,000/- to the Auction Purchaser and the entire sale consideration was paid by the auction purchaser. The Sale certificate is also issued to the auction purchaser and same is also registered.

¶49

4.5 The applicants have challenged the Possession Notice dated 14.12.2020 in SA No.16 of 2021 and Sale Notice dated 05.02.2021 in SA No.39 of 2021 which were dismissed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. Further the sale was taken place in September 2022 and the applicants were

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

challenging the Hon’ble CJM order dated 11.04.2023 in May 2023, the Section 14 order is only to take physical possession of the property under Section 14 of the Act and the same is to be handed over to the Auction purchaser.

¶54

4.6 Since the applicants have filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Commission at Puducherry in C.C.No.2 of 2022 for compensation on different heads against the respondent bank and the complaint has been dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 26.07.2023.

¶55

4.7 Therefore, the respondent bank as a secured creditor has followed all the steps in issuing the sale notice and the sale certificate is also duly registered in favor of the auction purchaser. Hence the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the present SA.

¶56

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

¶57

5.1 On perusal of the records of the case, it is an admitted fact that the applicants have availed a loan for Rs.40,00,000/- and also executed various loan documents, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds favoring the respondent bank. Further the applicants have not disputed the default in repayment and receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice, Section 13(4) Possession Notice 14.12.2020.

¶58

5.2 Subsequently, the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 14.12.2020 is duly withdrawn by the respondent bank and issued another

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

Possession notice dated 23.12.2020 which is also admittedly received by the applicants herein. The applicants have challenged the Possession Notice 14.12.2020 before this Hon’ble Tribunal which was dismissed on 02.12.2021.

¶63

5.3 Further the applicants have filed an A.I.R.No.11 of 2022 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai which is still pending and there is no stay order was granted by the Hon’ble DRAT. Further the contention that respondent bank has obtained a Section 14 order before the Ld. CJM Puducherry, by suppressing the pendency of appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT cannot sustain.

¶64

5.4 The main contention as raised by the applicants is that during the pendency of appeal in A.I.R. No.11 of 2022 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Chennai has approached the Ld. CJM, Puducherry and obtained a Section 14 order on 11.04.2023 cannot sustain as the A.I.R.No.11 of 2022 is not even numbered as appeal and the applicant also filed a waiver application in IA No.433 of 2022 which is also pending, further there is no stay granted by Hon’ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶65

5.5 The applicants have challenged the Sale notice dated 05.02.2021 in SA 39/2021 which was dismissed on 02.12.2021. In fact, the schedule property was sold on 20.09.2022 for Rs.1,58,50,000/- to the highest bidder and the entire sale consideration is also paid Auction purchaser.

¶66

5.6 The respondent bank has sold the property in favor of the highest bidder and sale certificate is also registered. Hence the respondent bank

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

has filed Section 14 application and obtained an order from Ld. CJM, Puducherry to take the physical possession of the property. Therefore, the contention raised by the applicant that during the pendency of appeal in A.I.R.No.11 of 2022 has obtained the Section 14 order cannot sustain.

¶71

5.7 Further, the counsel for applicant has filed a memo dated 13.02.2024 stating that the present SA has adjourned for 16.11.2023, 28.12.2023, 08.02.2023 for enquiry in the Securitization Application. Though, the applicant’s counsel has called the applicants through phone and notice and there is no proper response, written communication is also sent to the applicants through RPAD on 18.01.2024 which was returned with an endorsement as “Door locked and left without instruction” and prays to record this memo and to pass an appropriate order.

¶72

5.8 On perusal of the proceedings it is evident that the applicant has not prosecuted on several hearings; 22.08.2023, 16.11.2023, 24.04.2024, 12.03.2025, 11.08.2025. It is pertinent to note that the applicants have filed several securitization applications before this Tribunal;

¶73

i. SA 390/22 challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.08.2022

¶74

ii. SA 391/22 challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.08.2022

¶75

iii. SA 392/22 challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.08.2022 which were already heard & orders are being passed.

¶76

5.9 The applicants have admittedly challenged the Possession Notice dated 14.12.2020 in SA No.16/2021 and the Sale Notice dated 05.02.2021 in SA No.39/2021 which clearly reflects that the applicants are challenging

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

the each and every measure initiated by the respondent bank before this Tribunal and have not taken any attempt to clear the entire liabilities from the year 2020 to till date. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant is aware that the property is being put to sale and the Sale notice dated 05.02.2021 was challenged in SA 39/2021 which came to be dismissed. Further, the applicants have also challenged the Sale notice dated 19.08.2022 in SA No.390/2022, 391/2022, 392/2022 which were already hear and orders are being passed.

¶81

5.10 The records of the case clearly reflects that the applicants are not coming forward to settle the liability and have been frustrating the measures taken by the respondent bank before this Tribunal and it is also a matter of fact that the applicant has also filed a complaint before the State Consumer Commissioner at Puducherry in C.C.No.2 of 2022 which is also dismissed. Though the applicant has excised their right of appeal or right to adjudicate their grievances before the DRT or State Consumer Commission have miserably failed to make out a case.

¶82

5.11 However, the present case filed by the applicant is dismissed on merits. Though the applicant has challenged the Section 14 order have not pointed out any illegalities or violations in the measures initiated by the respondent bank under the Act. On the other hand, the respondent bank has taken all the measures in accordance with the Acts and Rules which is also supported by the documents resulting in the measures being taken by the respondent bank as valid measures.

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

5.12 Now considering the challenge to Section 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.

¶87

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

¶88

Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Others , 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.”

¶89

5.14 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt.

¶90

Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra has 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 above Bombay High Court judgment has since been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶91

“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

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

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 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”.

¶96

5.15 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. This provision ensures that the authority of these officials in enforcing security interests is final and not subject to further review.

¶97

5.16 T hus, the Section 14 order passed by the Ld. Section 14 order dated 11.04.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.10400/2022 passed by CJM, Puducherry is after due consideration of the application, affidavit in support of compliance of procedures along with documents is an execution Order issued where no adjudication is required. The Order is passed considering the due compliance of the provisions of the Section 14 [i-ix].

¶98

5.17 On examination of pleadings and documents produced by respective parties, the Tribunal comes to conclusion that the respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act after issuing the Possession Notice dated 23.12.2020.

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

5.18 Consequent to issuance of Possession Notice, respondent bank has sold the property in favor of the highest bidder and have complied all the procedures as contemplated under the Act and the Rules. Thus, it is held that the S.13[4] possession notice dated 23.12.2020 and Section 14 order dated 11.04.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.10400 of 2022 before the Ld. CJM Puducherry are held as valid measures initiated under the Act.

¶103

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

¶104

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

¶105

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 05^th day of December, 2025)

¶106

ANNEXURES

¶107

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶108

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	First information report of Crime No.13 of 2019 registered by the inspector of police grand bazaar police station, Puducherry for offences under section 409, 468 and 471 of I.P.C against the bank officials of Syndicate Bank, Puducherry dated 03.02.2019	A-1
2.	Charge Sheet No.133 of 2020 submitted by the Inspector Police, Grand Bazaar Police Station,	A-2

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

	Puducherry in connection with Crime No.13 of 209 for offences in Section 409, 420, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. which was taken on file by the Ld. CJM, Puducherry dated 21.10.2020
3.	Covering letter cancelling the possession notice issued on 14.12.2020 and 23.12.2020 by the respondent bank dated 23.12.2020	A-3
4.	Order passed in SA No.16 of 2021 by the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal – III, Chennai. Dated 02.12.2021	A-4
5.	Appeal filed in A.I.R. No.11 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Apellate Tribunal against the order passed in SA No.16 of 2021 dated Jan –2022	A-5
6.	An extract of the proceedings in A.I.R. No.11 of 2022 disclosing the pendency of the same on the file of Hon’ble File of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal scheduled for hearing on 12.06.2023	A-6
7.	A copy of the complaint filed before State Consumer Commission, Puducherry in C.C.No.2 of 2022 dated 04.08.2022	A-7
8.	Photo copy of the proof showing deposit of Rs.50,00,000/-	A-8
9.	Petition filed in Cr.M.P.No.10400 of 2022 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the respondent before the Ld. CJM, Puducherry dated 07.11.2022	A-9
10.	Order passed in Cr.M.P.No.10400 of 2022 by the Ld. CJM, Puducherry dated 11.04.2023	A-10

¶113

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶114

Sl. No.	Descrip	tion of D	ocuments	Document No.
1.	Letter addressed applicant along 20.03.2015	to the with	respondent by the Translation dated	R-1
2.	Acknowledgement facilities by No.960114000000	of Deb borrower 70 dated	t for all types of /sureties – A/c 30.03.2015	R-2
3.	Acknowledgement facilities by No.960112500008	of Deb borrower 94 dated	t for all types of /sureties – A/c 30.03.2015
4.	Letter addressed applicant along 28.10.2015	to the with	respondent by the translation dated	R-3

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

5.	Letter addressed to the respondent by the applicant in respect of present living address dated 30.12.2016	R-4
6.	Acknowledgement of Debt for all types of facilities by borrower/sureties – A/c. No.96011400000070 dated 22.05.2017	R-5
7.	Letter addressed to the respondent by the applicant undertaking to pay the entire outstanding in the loan accounts of Mrs. Anbe Sangeetha, W/o Mr. Gurumurthy and for Self account dated 15.06.2018	R-7
8.	Abstract of Entries in respect of the AIR 11 of 2022 with DRAT, Chennai	R-8
9.	Order copy in respect of Consumer Complaint No.02/2022 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Puducherry dated 26.07.2023	R-9

¶119

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶120

Properties owned by 1^st applicant:

¶121

All that part and parcel of the property consisting of Village No.40 at Vysial Street, the country tiled Dilapidated house measuring 100 Sq.ft bearing Door No.184, 186, 188, Old No.144, in the plot measuring EastWest: on the southern side:22.09 feet, on the Northern side: 22.3 feet South-North: on the Western side:77 feet, on the Eastern side:76 feet, totally measuring 01 Are 61 cent, comprised in Ward C Block No.7, T.S.No.182, R.S.No.239, pt Patta No.326, within the Registration Sub District of Puducherry and Registration District of Puducherry.

¶122

Boundaries:

¶123

On the North by: Loganathan’s house

¶124

On the South by: Vysial Street,

¶125

On the East by: Seshaiya Krishnamurthy’s house

¶126

On the West by: Saibaba’s house.

SA No.291/2023

05.12.2025

Propery owned by 2^nd applicant:

¶131

All that part and parcel of the property bearing Old Door No.42, New Door No.52, Aravindar Street, Pondicherry – 605 001 comprised in T.S.No.117, R.S.No.239 pt, Pondicherry Revenue Village, Village No.40 Ward “C”, Block No.15, Brick built house measuring an extent of EastWest: on the Northern side:4.80 meters, Southern side:4.20 meters, South-North: on both sides 15.75 meters or total extent of 763 sq.ft. or 70.87 sq.meters along with easementary right of enjoying Eastern side of common pathway having an extent of East-West:01 meters, south-north: 15.75 meters or 169.5 sq.ft., within the registration Sub District of Puducherry and Registration District of Puducherry.

¶132

Boundaries:

¶133

On the North by: Sridhar Mania property

¶134

On the South by: Aravindar Street

¶135

On the East by: Sangeetha and proposed seller’s brother Sridhar’s common lane

¶136

On the West by: House comprised in T.S.No.118.

¶137

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

N Gurumurthy v. Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Gurumurthy v. Canara Bank (Syndicate 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 Sreedharan

Canara Bank versus Dharma Pharmacy Pvvt Ltd. And Others

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Shri Freight and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus G R Industries

Union Bank of India versus Anjana

N Gurumurthy versus Canara Bank