Dismissed

M L Abdul Salam v. Union Bank of India

DRT24 Jun 2025SA/307/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This sale application challenges the sale certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in favor of an auction purchaser after an e-auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held the measures valid as the applicants failed to redeem the property within the statutory period after the auction notice was published and within the specific time granted by orders, thereby extinguishing

What did the court decide?

Sale certificate dated 16.05.2022 issued in favor of the second respondent (auction purchaser) is held to be valid. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

M L Abdul Salam versus Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

S.A. No. 307/2022 -1- 24.06.2025

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this 24^th day of June, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: SMT.S.V.GOWRAMMA

¶5

Presiding Officer

¶6

S.A. No. 307 of 2022

¶7

1. Mr. L. Abdul Salam,
S/o. M. L. Abdul Malik,
Residing at:
Villa No. 94, North Town,
Dr. Ambedkar College Road,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.
2. Mrs. Naheed Sayeeda,
W/o. M.L. Abdul Salam,
Residing at:
Villa No. 94, North Town,
Dr. Ambedkar College Road,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.	-Vs-	…. Applicants
1. Union Bank of India, Kellys Branch, No.12, Ormes Road,
Kellys, Chennai – 600 010.
2. Mr. Anbarasu. D (Auction Purch No. 99/45, Maddox Street,	aser),
Choolai, Chennai – 600 112.		….. Respondents
Counsel on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant	:	Mr. V. Anil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent	:	Mr. A. Jaishankar

¶8

S.A. No. 307/2022 -2- 24.06.2025

¶9

ORDERS ON SA No. 307 /2022

¶10

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section [1] of Section 17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short of the ‘Act’) Challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶11

The Applicant has impugned Sale Certificate dated 16.05.2022 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs. 44,27,957/-.

¶12

3. Pleadings of the Applicant:

¶13

3.1 The 1^st applicant and the 2^nd applicant are the husband and wife and as co-borrowers availed a housing loan of Rs. 45,00,000/- in the year 2013 created equitable mortgaged favoring the 1^st respondent.

¶14

3.2 The applicants made the repayment till 2018 and due to recession in the business applicant defaulted resulting in classification as NPA on 29.07.2018 followed by the issuance of demand notice dated 03.10.2018 demanding an amount of Rs. 39,54,355/- and the respondent have also taken the symbolic possession notice.

¶15

3.3 It is contended the respondent had issued multiple sale notices, first sale notice dated 12.02.2019 claiming an amount of Rs.39,43,676/and the second sale notice dated 01.04.2019 claiming an amount of Rs.39,43,676/- and the third sale notice dated 07.01.2020

¶16

S.A. No. 307/2022 -3- 24.06.2025

¶17

scheduling the sale on 06.02.2020 with a reserve price of Rs.1,12,60,600/- for the outstanding amount of Rs.44,27,957/- due as on 11.12.2019. The sale is held to the sole bidder who is the 2^nd respondent herein for a sum of Rs.1,12,60,000/-.

¶18

3.4 The applicant had challenged the sale dated 06.02.2020 in S.A. No. 62 of 2020 deposited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in compliance of the interim order which was imposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 09.03.2020. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 04.08.2021 disposed of the Securitization Application (S.A.) giving right to redeem the property within 3 weeks from the date of order. Despite, multiple attempts made by the applicant the 1^st respondent refused to co-operate.

¶19

3.5 Hence, the applicant aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2021 preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai in A.I.R.(SA) No. 161 of 2021 and the Hon’ble DRAT vide order dated 20.09.2021 pleased to order of waiver on pre-condition that a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- to be paid in two installments, the first installments of Rs. 20,00,000/- to be paid within a period of 4 weeks and the second installment to be paid within a next 4 weeks which the applicant to comply on 12.10.2021. However, were not able to comply with the second transaction of payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- and in this interim applications were pending for sometime due to superannuation of the Chairperson and

¶20

S.A. No. 307/2022 -4- 24.06.2025

¶21

finally on 25.04.2022, the Hon’ble DRAT dismissed the application on the ground that valid reasons were not provided against delay and non compliance of the interim order.

¶22

3.6 It is contended that the applicant has made payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards in compliance of the interim order and subsequently has paid Rs.20,00,000/- towards the compliance of the Hon’ble DRAT order and on making attempts to repay the amount.

¶23

3.7 The applicant being aggrieved by the Hon’ble DRAT order filed W.P. No.12624 of 2022 on 07.05.2022 and then the Applicant was informed that the impugned sale was held and sale certificate issued on 16.05.2022.

¶24

3.8 In the grounds, it is contended that the impugned sale certificate issued pursuant to the sale notice dated 07.01.2020 and further e-auction suffers from non application of mind, the sale is in violation of Rule 9(2) of the SARFEASI Rules and placed reliance on the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in “K.Raamaselvam & 2 Others versus Indian Overseas Bank”. Contending that as there is a one single bidder it is not a successful bidder and reliance is placed on “ Ram Kishun & Others versus State of UP ” contending that the fundamental right of the

¶25

S.A. No. 307/2022 -5- 24.06.2025

¶26

individual that the constitution right of a person on the property cannot be deprived.

¶27

3.9 It is contended that upset price fixed is Rs. 1,54,00,000/- without any statutory basis and the reserve price varied from the first two and subsequent sale notices is bad and prays to quash the sale certificate issued by the 1^st respondent dated 16.05.2022.

¶28

4. Counter of the Respondent Bank:

¶29

4.1 The respondent bank has filed a detailed counter along with the supporting documents inter-alia contending that the bank sanctioned a Corp Home Facility of Rs.45,00,000/- vide credit sanction intimation dated 30.11.2013. Due to default in the repayment, the account was classified as NPA on 29.07.2018, followed by Section 13(2) Notice on 03.10.2018. The demand notice was duly served on the applicant and did not raise any objections or representations, hence the 1^st respondent bank issued a possession notice issued on 11.12.2018 under section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act read with Rule 8.

¶30

4.2 In spite of service of the statutory notice as applicant did not comply with, the bankers issued the sale notice dated 13.02.2019 for the sale was fixed on 29.03.2019, after obtaining the valuation of the properties from the approved valuer. The notices were sent to the

¶31

S.A. No. 307/2022 -6- 24.06.2025

¶32

applicant which is duly received. However, the sale do not materialized hence the bankers issued the second sale notice on 01.04.2019 and finally issued fourth sale notice dated 07.01.2020 fixing the E-Auction Sale on 06.02.2020.

¶33

The sale notice is affixed on the premises on 07.01.2020, published in the newspapers on 17.01.2020, the English edition “The New Indian Express” and the Tamil edition “Dinamani” in Chennai Edition. The respondent obtained the valuation report from the approved valuer on 20.11.2019 and fixed the reserved price at Rs.112.60 Lakhs. However the applicant has not challenged the sale notice dated 07.01.2020. The schedule e-auction took placed as fixed on 06.02.2020 and the 2^nd respondent is the successful bidder who bid the property and paid a EMD of Rs.11,12,60,000 on 05.02.2020 and he was deprived as a successful bidder for a sum of Rs.11,12,60,000/-. The 2^nd respondent had remitted a balance sum of Rs. 16,89,000/- which was 25% bid amount on 06.02.2020 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the 2^nd respondent on 07.02.2020.

¶34

4.3 The applicant had challenged the sale in S.A. No. 62 of 2020 and obtained an interim order of stay on 09.03.2020 at the sale was not conducted. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 04.08.2021 directed the applicant to redeem the property on or before

¶35

S.A. No. 307/2022 -7- 24.06.2025

¶36

31.08.2020 and in case if the applicant is not exercising their right of redemption by discharging the entire debt due, the respondent was given liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶37

4.4 The applicant did not comply with the order passed by the Tribunal instead sought 3 months time vide letter dated 28.08.2021 to clear the liability which was duly replied by the bank on 31.08.2021. However, the applicant did not redeem the property as per the order dated 04.08.2021, hence the respondent vide letter dated 01.09.2021 directed the 2^nd respondent to remit the balance sale consideration and gave 3 months time to arrange for the balance sale consideration and granted one month time to the 2^nd respondent for making the balance amount vide letter dated 15.09.2021.

¶38

4.5 The Applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai obtained interim stay in AIR No. 161 of 2021, directing the applicants to deposit Rs. 40,00,000/- in two installments, the first installment of Rs. 20 Lakhs to be deposited within a period of 4 weeks from the date of order and 2^nd installments of Rs. 20,00,000/to be deposited in the next 4 weeks vide order dated 20.09.2021.

¶39

4.6 The 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 04.10.2021 requested to issue sale certificate with vacant possession in his favour on payment of balance sale consideration or refund the 25% money, as the

¶40

S.A. No. 307/2022 -8- 24.06.2025

¶41

litigation between the applicants and the first respondent is continuing endlessly for more than 20 months.

¶42

4.7 The first respondent vide reply dated 12.10.2021 intimated to the 2^nd respondent about the status quo order in AIR No. 161 of 2021 by the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai. The 2^nd respondent given a letter on 16.10.2021 for extension to make balance sale consideration till 30.11.2021, if the applicants fail to pay the second installment by 20.11.2021. The first respondent had replied to the second respondent on 05.11.2021 about the status quo order granted by this Hon'ble DRAT Chennai and the bank is not in a position to accept his offer till the outcome of the above Appeal.

¶43

4.8 The applicant had filed application in I.A.No.636 of 2021 & 637 of 2021 dated 24.11.2021 before the Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai for extension of time to comply with the condition order dated 20.09.2021. The applicant had filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.26541 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai on 14.12.2021 for extension of time to comply the condition order passed by the Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai, since there was no Chairperson in the Tribunal.

¶44

4.9 The Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai dismissed the appeal in AIR (SA) No.161 of 2021 along with I.A.No.636 & 637 of 2021 dated 25.04.2022. The 1^st respondent after receipt of DRAT order on 06.05.2022, sent a

¶45

S.A. No. 307/2022 -9- 24.06.2025

¶46

Letter to the 2^nd respondent to make the 2^nd respondent had paid the balance 75% of sale consideration of Rs.84,45,000/- to the 1^st respondent bank on 13.05.2022. The 1^st respondent Bank had issued Sale Certificate in favour of the 2^nd respondent (auction purchaser) on 16.05.2022.

¶47

4.10 The Respondent bank has relied on the judgment of “ S. Karthik

¶48

and Others versus N. Subhash Chand Jain and others ” and also

¶49

the order passed by the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai dated 24.11.2023.

¶50

5. Written submission filed by the 2^nd respondent :

¶51

5.1. The 2^nd respondent on seeing the sale publication of the Sale Notice on 17.01.2020 participated in the e-auction for the reserve price at Rs.1,12,60,000/- and submitted EMD amount of Rs.11,26,000/- on 05.02.2020. The 2^nd respondent was the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.1,12,60,000/- and remitted the balance 15% of auction amount for a sum of Rs.16,89,000/- on 06.02.2020. Hence, the respondent bank confirmed the sale favour of the 2^nd respondent on 07.02.2020.

¶52

5.2 The 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 07.02.2020 sought 90 days time to pay the balance 75% of the sale amount which came to be approved by the respondent vide their letter dated 07.02.2020. As the Applicant had obtained an interim order of the stay on 09.03.2020 in S.A. No. 62 of 2020 with direction to redeem the

¶53

S.A. No. 307/2022 -10- 24.06.2025

¶54

property on or before 31.08.2021 vide order 04.08.2021. It was clarifying that in case applicants not exercising their right of redemption by discharging the entire debt due a simple interest at 9% per annum to be paid to the 2^nd respondent on the 25% of the bid amount which was deposited till the actual payment and liberty was given for the 1^st respondent bank to proceed in accordance with law.

¶55

5.3 However, the applicant did not redeem their property as per the order of this Tribunal and the 1^st respondent bank vide letter dated 01.09.2021 directed the 2^nd respondent to remit the balance sale amount. The 2^nd respondent was on vacation in India and due to Covid-19 conditions travelling restrictions to go abroad to mobilize the fund of Rs.84,45,000/- within 15 days was impracticable. Hence, the 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 10.09.2021 sought 3 months’ time to arrange the balance sale consideration.

¶56

5.4 The applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai in A.I.R. No. 161 of 2021 challenging the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by this Tribunal with an intention drag on the matter and the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai also granted stay on 20.09.2021 on all further proceedings taken by the respondents gave one more chance to the applicants to redeem their property vide order dated 20.09.2021, directing the applicants to deposit Rs. 40,00,000/- in

¶57

S.A. No. 307/2022 -11- 24.06.2025

¶58

two installments, the first installment of Rs. 20,00,000/- to be deposited within a period of 4 weeks and the second installment of Rs. 20,00,000/- to be deposited in the next 4 weeks in Waiver Petition in I.A. No. 546 of 2021.

¶59

5.5 The 2^nd respondent mobilized the fund and equivocated the same to the bank on 04.10.2021 seeking for issuance of the Sale Certificate along with the vacant possession of the property. However, the respondent bank vide letter dated 12.10.2021 posted on 13.10.2021, received on 16.10.2021 intimated the status quo order passed by the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai and the 1^st respondent could not proceed further regarding the payment of the balance sale consideration.

¶60

5.6 Though the applicant complied with the first installment as directed

¶61

by the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai and failed to comply with the second part of the installment. However, the applicant filed an Application on 24.11.2021 before the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai seeking two months time to comply the order of payment of the second installment. As Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai chair was the vacant the applicant filed in W.P. No.26541 of 2021 seeking for extension of two months time which the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was granted stay of the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the DRAT, Chennai.

¶62

S.A. No. 307/2022 -12- 24.06.2025

¶63

5.7. Subsequently, the application was dismissed and the 1^st respondent called upon the 2^nd respondent by letter dated 06.05.2021 to remit the balance sale consideration on or before 17.05.2021, though the W.P. No. 26541 of 2021 was pending. The 2^nd respondent deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs. 84,45,000/- by way of a cheque and the 1^st respondent issued the Sale Certificate on 16.05.2022, the sale is confirm in favour of the 2^nd respondent and the applicant having failed to redeem their property as per the direction of this Tribunal and the contention that on receipt of the letter dated 06.05.2022 to pay the balance 75% amount within 6 days is well within the time frame prescribed under Rule 9(4) of the SARFEASI Act.

¶64

6. Heard both sides of the counsels and perused the records of

¶65

the case .

¶66

6.1 The records of the case clearly reflects that the 1^st and 2^nd applicant had approached the 1^st respondent bank had availed a housing loan of Rs. 45,00,000/- which was sanctioned vide letter dated 30.11.2013 and mortgaged the property as collateral security favoring the 1^st respondent bank. In fact applicant does not

¶67

S.A. No. 307/2022 -13- 24.06.2025

¶68

dispute with regard to availing of credit facility and the mortgage of the property as secured asset.

¶69

6.2 Due to default in the repayment the account of the applicants is classified as NPA on 29.07.2018 and bank has issued section 13(2) demand notice on 03.10.2018 which is duly served on the applicant.

¶70

6.3 Though the applicant had received the statutory notices did not raise any objections nor liquidated the liability within a period of 60 days, hence the secured creditor has proceeded further and issued Section 13(4) Notice on 11.12.2018 which is not disputed by the applicant herein.

¶71

6.4 As the applicants did not comply even after issuance of Section 13(4) notice, the 1^st respondent bank has issued a sale notices and it is seen that the present sale notice dated 07.01.2020 which is been challenged in the present S.A. is the fourth sale notice scheduling the property to be sold on 06.02.2020.

¶72

6.5 The Respondent bank have produced the copy of the sale notice dated 07.01.2020 at Page No. 10 to 21 along with the acknowledgment cards for due service of the sale notice. In fact the issuance of sale notice is not disputed, however the contention that sale notice is not served was taken up in S.A. No. 62 of 2020 and not in the present SA. Further, the respondent have also produced

¶73

S.A. No. 307/2022 -14- 24.06.2025

¶74

the photograph of affixure of the sale notice, the sale notice is published in two newspapers one in English daily “The New Indian Express” and the Tamil daily “Dinamani” as required under the Act.

¶75

6.6 It is also matter of record the respondent has obtained valuation report from their approved valuer on 20.11.2019 before proceeding with the action sale which was successfully held and the 2^nd respondent is the successful bidder who had participated and had paid the amount more than the reserve price fixed by the Bank.

¶76

6.7 It is seen that the applicants challenged the sale held on 06.02.2020 in S.A. No. 62 of 2020 which is subsequent to the sale notice dated 07.01.2020. It is seen from the Order produced that Page No. 29 of the respondent bank typed set that the applicant admittedly have challenged the sale notice subsequent to the sale held. The further contention that the reserve price is fixed at Rs.1.12 Crores for a recovery of Rs.46,00,000/- is not sustainable and there is no bank has fixed reserve price based on valuer report and it is not the case of the applicant that there is irregularity in fixing he reserve price, nor applicant has produced an independent valuer report to counter the reserve price fixed by the bank. As the applicants expressed theri willingness to redeem the property, Tribunal permitted them to redeem the property within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order in any case later than 30.01.2021.

¶77

S.A. No. 307/2022 -15- 24.06.2025

¶78

6.8 Further, it was clarified in case the applicant intends to redeem the property liable to pay the entire due or any other amount which can be mutually acceptable on negotiation between parties taking the interest of the 2^nd respondent as the auction bidder already paid 25% amount @ 9% per annum simple interest from the date of the deposit. The 1^st respondent bank was permitted to refund 25% of amount of the 2^nd respondent with the interest in case applicant redeems the property..

¶79

6.9 Additionally, it is clarified that the applicant have to comply with the order on or before 31.08.2021 and in case if the applicant not exercising the right of redemption, the bank was permitted to confirm the sale in favour of the 2^nd respondent. The relevant para of the order is as under:

¶80

Para (9) In the event, applicants intend to redeem the mortgage, they will be

¶81

(1) liable for the entire debt due to respondent bank or for any other amount as can be mutually acceptable on negotiation between parties;

¶82

(ii) liable for interest to the second respondent/auction bidder (over the 25% of the bid amount remitted) at the rate of 9% p.a. (simple) from the date of deposit till the date of actual repayment.

¶83

S.A. No. 307/2022 -16- 24.06.2025

¶84

(iii) First respondent bank is permitted to refund 25% amount to 2nd respondent together with interest. Interest is recoverable from applicants as stated in (ii) above.

¶85

(iv) All the above actions to be completed by both parties by or before 31.08.2021 and in the event of applicants not exercising their right of redemption by discharging the entire debt due to first respondent bank by the said date, first respondent bank is permitted to confirm the sale in favour of second respondent / auction bidder by receiving the balance sale consideration and proceeding further in accordance to law.

¶86

6.10 As matter of record, the applicant did not comply with the undertaking given in S.A. No. 62 of 2020 however, preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai in AIR No. 161 of 2021 and the applicant did not comply with the waiver deposit. Though, two installments were granted did not comply the same and hence the appeal came to be dismissed.

¶87

6.11 The 2^nd respondent who is the successful bidder is also made a party in the present S.A. and has participated in the e-auction and have deposited a bid amount and also the entire sale consideration as per terms of the auction sale. However, the 2^nd respondent who is the successful bidder has not yet been given physical possession in view of status quo order granted by this Tribunal. It is pathetic to see the

¶88

S.A. No. 307/2022 -17- 24.06.2025

¶89

third parties / public who participate in the auction sale conducted by the bank are not being protected and the applicant without redeeming the property has frustrated the measures taken by the bank.

¶90

6.12 The 1^st respondent after obtaining a valuation report has fixed the reserve price and nothing prevented the applicant to obtain valuation from independent valuer to counter the valuation of the respondent bank. The second contention as raised by the applicant he has made that deposit as an when he was directed and the same would be sufficient to clear the entire liability cannot sustain.

¶91

6.13 It is pertinent to note that 1^st applicant has challenged the present S.A. after the sale is successfully held and have challenged the sale held on 06.02.2020 which was the subject matter in S.A. No. 62 of 2020.

¶92

6.14 As a matter of record that the applicant in S.A. No. 62 of 2020 as sought liberty to redeem the property and constitute to request and willingness of the applicant to redeem the property in spite of the successful bidder. This Tribunal had granted time to redeem the property.

¶93

6.15 It is seen that the applicant has miserably failed to redeem the property in spite of sufficient opportunity granted by this Tribunal and DRAT Chennai.

¶94

S.A. No. 307/2022 -18- 24.06.2025

¶95

6.16 Now considering the right of redemption is available under section 13(8) of the SARFEASI Act, until the publication of the sale notice. In the instant matter it is seen that the sale notice is published in the English daily “The New Indian Express and Tamil daily “Dinamani” in Chennai Edition on 17.01.2020 have already lost the right of the redemption.

¶96

6.17 It is pertinent to mention that this Tribunal had granted right of redemption in spite of the auction being held and the applicant has miserably failed to do so. In this regard this Tribunal places reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “Celir LLP versus Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd.” considered the right of redemption under S.13[8] after the amendment has held that borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the SARFAESI Act will get extinguished once the bank publishes an auction notice for the sale of the secured asset and further held that the failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues before the publication of the auction notice as per Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act constituted an "extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage. The applicant have lost the right of redemption and has failed miserable to redeem the property in spite of opportunity granted by this Tribunal.

¶97

S.A. No. 307/2022 -19- 24.06.2025

¶98

6.18 Further this Tribunal places reliance on the Order of the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai in RA[SA]15/2023, RA[SA]16/2023. RA [SA]17/23 and RA[SA] 18/2023, where it is categorically held the sale certificate alone cannot be challenged as sale certificate is not a measure and it is only consequential measure after the properties sold. Admittedly, the applicant had challenged the sale notice in S.A. No. 62 of 2020 and cannot challenge the same averments in

¶99

the present S.A. which is nothing but res judicata. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has not made out a case to interfere with the sale notice dated 07.01.2020, sale held. On the other hand, the 1^st respondent bank have establish the due compliance of the measures taken and the auction purchaser being the third party is made unnecessarily to contest the litigation. The applicant having lost right of the redemption have frustrated the matter from 2020 to 2025 without any bonafides which is highly depreciated.

¶100

6.19 Upon examination of facts, pleadings and the doucments relied upon by parties, the Tribunal concludes the measure taken in using the sale notice dated 07.01.2020; sale held on 06.02.2020; issuance of sale certificate 16.05.2022 are valid notices issued in compliance of the procedures as enumerated under the Act and Rules made thereunder. As the applicant failed to make any irregularity in the sale held or in issuing the sale certificate, the same are held as valid measure under the Act.

¶101

S.A. No. 307/2022 -20- 24.06.2025

¶102

6.20 For the foregoing reasons the present S.A. No. 307/2022 stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending

¶103

IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶104

(S.V.GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT –III, Chennai

¶105

(Dictated to Steno (Ponmalar), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this 23 rd day of June, 2025)

¶106

ANNEXURES

¶107

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶108

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents
1.	03.04.2018	Demand Notice issued by the 1^stdefendant Bank
2.	01.04.2019	Sale Notice issued by the 1^stdefendant Bank
3.	11.12.2019	Sale Notice issued by the 1^stdefendant Bank
4.	07.01.2020	Sale Notice issued by the 1^stdefendant Bank
5.	04.08.2022	Order passed in S. No. 62 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
6.	20.09.2021	Order passed in I.A. No. 546 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
7.	12.10.2021	Demand Draft drawn at Karur Vysya Bank for Rs.20,00,000/-
8.	23.11.2021	Demand Draft drawn at Federal Bank for Rs.12,00,000/-
9.	25.04.2022	Order passed in I.A. Nos. 636 & 637 of 2021, by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
10.	--	Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble Madras High Court

¶109

S.A. No. 307/2022 -21- 24.06.2025

¶110

11.	--	Counter Affidavit filed by the 1^stdefendant Bank in
		W. P. No. 12624 of 2022
12.	27.06.2022	Demand Draft drawn from Karur Vysya Bank
13.	16.05.2022	Impugned Sale Certificate
14.	--	Vakalatnama

¶111

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶112

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents
1.	20.11.2019	Valuation Report of the of the Schedule Property
2.	07.01.2020	Sale Notice issued by the first respondent to the Applicant along with Acknowledgement card
3.	07.01.2020	Proof of Affixture of Sale Notice
4.	17.01.2020	Paper publication of the Sale Notice issued in English daily namely The New Indian Express and in one issued in Tamil daily namely Dinamani
5.	07.02.2020	Confirmation of Sale issued by the first respondent to the second respondent
6.	19.10.2020	Proceeding in SA No.62 of 2020 by this Hon'ble Tribunal
7.	04.08.2021	Final order in S.A.No.62 of 2020 passed by the DRT- III, Chennai
8.	27.08.2021	Letter given by the petition to the first respondent for extension of time for settled the dues
9.	31.08.2021	Reply Letter given by the first respondent to the first petitioner
10.	01.09.2021	Letter by the first respondent to the second Respondent
11.	10.09.2021	Letter given by the second respondent to the first respondent
12.	15.09.2021	Letter given by the first respondent to the second respondent
13.	20.09.2021	Interim order in AIR No.161 of 2021 passed by the Hon'ble DRAT Chennai
14.	04.10.2021	Letter given by the second respondent to the first respondent

¶113

S.A. No. 307/2022 -22- 24.06.2025

¶114

15.	12.10.2021	Reply given by the first respondent to the second respondent
16.	16.10.2021	Letter given by the second respondent to the first respondent
17.	05.11.2021	Reply Letter given by the first respondent to the second respondent
18.	26.11.2021	Affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.26541 of 2021 before this Hon'ble High Court, Chennai
19.	21.12.2021	Counter filed by the first respondent in W.P.No.26541 of 2021 before this Hon'ble High Court, Chennai
20.	25.04.2022	Order passed in AIR (SA) No.161 of 2021 by the Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai
21.	06.05.2022	Letter given by the first respondent to the second respondent
22.	16.05.2022	Sale Certificate issued by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent
23.	07.05.2022	Affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.12624 of 2022 before this Hon'ble High Court, Chennai
24.	22.06.2022	Counter filed by the first respondent in W.P.No.12624 of 2022 before this Hon'ble High Court, Chennai

¶115

SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY

¶116

Description of immovable secured assets to be sold:

¶117

Item No.1:

¶118

Property consisting of land and building comprised in RS. Nos. 145, 146/1, 146/2,147,148,149, 150, 225, 226/3, 226/4 and 229, Block Nos. 7,12 and 13 consisting of 599.20 grounds (as depicted in the 'sketch' appended thereto) called "Buckingham and Carnatic Gardens" bearing Door Nos. 4,5,6 and 7, Stephenson Road, Perambur, Chennai.

¶119

S.A. No. 307/2022 -23- 24.06.2025

¶120

Bounded on the:

¶121

North by	:	Ashwell Maidan (Item No.2) and
		Moharrundian Cemetry
South by	:	Stephenson Road
East by	:	Otteri Nullah, and
West by	:	Properties at Chacklipalayam village and the
		property belonging to the State Bank of India

¶122

Total Extent: 599.20 grounds.

¶123

Item No: 2

¶124

Property consisting of land and building comprised R.S. Nos. 142/1,142/4, 144, 145, 146/1, 146/2, 152/1, 231/2 and 231/3, Block Nos. 6, 7, and 13 consisting of 287 grounds as depicted in the 'sketch' appended thereto) called "Ashwell Maidan" bearing, Door lo. 152. Gantz Road, Perambur, Chennai, bounded on the

¶125

North by	:	Southern Railway Line and Vysarpadi Railway
		Station
South by	:	Buckhingam and Carnatic Gardens Mohammedian
		Cemetery and Shacklipalyam Village (Part)
East by	:	Gantz Road, Mohammedian Cemetery, and
West by	:	Chacklipalayam village

¶126

Total Extent: 287 grounds

¶127

Item No.3

¶128

Property consisting of land and building comprised in R.S. No,156, Block No.8 consisting of 373.70 grounds, (as depicted in the 'sketch' appended thereto) called "Joint School" bearing Door No.8, and 8-D, Stephenson Road, Perambur, Chennai of Perambur Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District, bounded on the:

¶129

S.A. No. 307/2022 -24- 24.06.2025

¶130

North by : Otteri Nullah South by : Stephenson Road East by : TNSCB Quarters, Huts, Gantz Road, and West by : Otteri Nullah

¶131

Total Extent: 373.70 grounds

¶132

Grand total extent (Item 1 Item 2 Item 3) is 1,259.90 grounds at Perambur Village, Perambur Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District, within the registration district of Central Chennai and Sub-registration district of Purusawalkam.

¶133

SCHEDULE-B

¶134

All that piece and parcel of five-bedroom Row house No.094 at Gulmohar Avenue of Type-2 to be constructed in the Schedule-A property having a super built up area of 2187 Sq. ft. (which is inclusive of the floors, ceiling and wall between the row house and proportionate share in all common areas and club house area) and plot's basic land area of 1770 Sq.ft., together with exclusive right to use one garage car parking space and one open reserved car parking space. The right of use of additional land area is 59 Sq.ft. as per the plan at the time of completion of this row house.

¶135

Sd/(S.V.GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT –III, Chennai

M L Abdul Salam v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M L Abdul Salam v. Union Bank of India

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Jupiter Business Excellence

Bank of Baroda versus Krishnan

M S Hima Aqua Minerals versus Indian Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Bannari Amman Enterprises and Another

Indian Overseas Bank versus Vignesh Structurals and Another

C S Ajith versus Axis Bank