Dismissed

Ms Sreenevasha Motors rep by its partners P Kumaravel and P Chakkaravarthy v. Indian Bank

DRT21 Oct 2025SA/351/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a Section 14 execution order under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that Section 14 powers are ministerial and non-adjudicatory, requiring no inquiry into the validity of prior notices. The applicant's separate challenge to the sale was pending in a different application filed earlier, so the present petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application challenging the Section 14 order is dismissed. Any interim order granted stands vacated.

Ms Sreenevasha Motors rep by its partners P Kumaravel and P… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 351 of 2024

¶8

M/s. Sreenevasha Motors, Partnership firm

¶9

Rep. by its Partners Mr. P. Kumaravel & P. Chakkaravarthy, No. 5/30 (Old No. 5/27) Dharmapuri Main Road, Karimangalam,

¶10

Dharmapuri District – 635 111

¶11

Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy, S/o Parthiban No. 2/146, Alamarathupatti, Bommahalli, Karimangalam Dharmapuri District – 635 111

¶12

Mr. P. Kumaravel, S/o Paneerselvam, Aathupalankottai, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri – 635 111

¶13

Mrs. K. Naveena, W/o. Kumaravel, Aathupalankottai, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri – 635 111

¶14

Mrs. C. Kalaimani, W/o. Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy, No.2/146, Alamarathupatti, Bommahalli, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri – 635 111 ….Applicants -Vs-

¶15

Indian Bank, Karimangalam Branch, Rep. by its Authorized Officer and The Chief Manager, Karimangalam Branch, No.16, Palacode Road, Karimangalam Dharmapuri – 635 111 ….Respondent

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G. Mohammed Aseef Counsel for Respondent : M/s. L. Ramkumar

¶21

ORDER ON SA No.351/2024

¶22

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].

¶23

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Sec.14 order dated 24.05.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.1344 of 2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.1,47,65,000/-

¶24

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶25

3.1 The 1^st applicant is a partnership firm represented by its partners Mr. P. Kumaravel and Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy the 2^nd and 3^rd applicants herein. The applicants availed a Loan (OCC No.6138821938, 6539827729, 6865753526. SME-6612117966, 6865754950, Covid Emg6875161811, 6875161775, GECLS-6884856449, 6884852569, 7133981128, 6875161866) which was to be repaid as per the terms of the sanction.

¶26

3.2 Default occurred due to the fire accident and the company has registered an FIR Crime No.26.03.2019 and applicants never allowed their

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

account to become a NPA. However, the applicant received the Sec.13(2) demand notice on 02.05.2022 the applicants immediately approached the respondent bank seeking for an explanation, how the EMI was irregular and also made all the efforts to put an ended to the issue. The bank has issued the possession notice without giving any gap under Sec.13(4) read with Rule 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶31

3.3 The applicant had approached the bank for one time settlement which were rejected and the bank issued the sale notice dated 21.09.2023, for the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,47,65,000/scheduling the sale on 30.10.2023 and one Balakrishnan as bid the property, who is the successful bidder and has paid 25% of reserve price.

¶32

3.4 The applicant challenged the Sale Notice dated 21.09.2023 and confirmation of sale, in SA.No. 586 of 2023 and paid 50% of the outstanding due amount as under::

¶33

S.No	Date	Description	Amount
1.	22.11.2023	Payment through Demand Draft	Rs.29,53,000/-
2.	18.01.2024	Payment through RTGD	Rs.7,50,000/-
3.	14.02.2024	Payment through Demand Draft	Rs.32,00,000/-
4.	21.02.2024	Payment through RTGS	Rs.5,00,000/-
		Total	Rs.74,03,000/-

¶34

3.5 It is contended that applicant filed an application to reopen the case, which came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri and passed final order in Crl.M.P.No.1344 of 2024 on 24.05.2024 without considering the pendency of SA.No.586 of 2023

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Further an advocate commissioner was appointed directing to take physical possession of the schedule mentioned property and to complete the process of delivering possession and file report on or before 23.07.2024.

¶39

3.6 It is further contended that the sale notice is not issued, description of the property is not property described; sale notice is not published in two newspapers and the reserve price fixed for the property is very low. Hence prays to set aside the E-auction sale held on 30.10.2023 in pursuant to the sale notice dated 21.09.2023.

¶40

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶41

4.1 The respondent has filed the counter along with all supporting documents inter alia contenting that the loan was availed by applicant M/s. Sreenevasha Motors, a partnership concern and all the loan documents were executed by the partnership firm. As the borrower defaulted in the repayment, the bank initiated the proceedings under the Act and issued demand notice on 02.05.2022, and the possession notice dated 19.09.2022, and sale notice dated 21.09.2023 to the partnership firm.

¶42

4.2 As the borrower was irregular in the repayment despite repeated request, the loan account of M/s. Sreenevasha Motors was classified as NPA on 29.05.2021 in strict adherence to RBI guidelines. The outstanding amount as on 18.04.2022 was Rs.1,28,31,472/- along with further interest from 19.04.2022 till the date of repayment. After the

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

classification of account as NPA, the bank has issued the demand notice dated 02.05.2022 calling upon M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and its partners to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,31,472/- due as on 18.04.2022 within a period of 60 days.

¶47

4.3 The notice was sent to the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and its partners and the same have been received by the 4^th applicant and the notice sent to the other applicants are returned with an endorsement “Refused”. Hence the demand notice was published in a vernacular daily “Dinamalar” on 07.05.2022 and published in English daily “Indian Express” on 07.05.2022. The borrowers and the guarantors did not bothered to reply nor paid the money, hence the bank issued the possession notice on 19.09.2022 under sec.13(4) exercising the power under section 13(12) of the Act.

¶48

4.4 The possession notice was sent through registered post with acknowledgement card, the same was refused by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors; the possession notice dated 19.09.2022 is affixed on the secured asset, the possession notice published in vernacular daily Dinamalar on 24.09.2022 and English daily Indian Express dated 24.09.2022. Despite the service of the possession notice M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and its partners did not bothered to repay any amount towards the outstanding. Hence the respondent issued the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 for sale of the secured asset on 30.10.2023 in exercising the power under Rule 6(2) & 8(6) of the security interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002.

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

4.5 The sale notice was duly sent through registered post with acknowledgement card which is refused by applicants. The sale notice dated 21.09.2023 was affixed on the secured asset, published in the vernacular daily Dinamalar on 29.09.2023 and in English daily Indian Express on 29.09.2023. The sale notice dated 21.09.2023 is challenged by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and its partners in the above case.

¶53

4.6 The sale has taken place and the secured asset is sold to the highest bidder Mr. G. Balakrishnan, the sale certificate dated 23.11.2023 is issued which is pending for registration before the concern SRO. The bank denies the averments made in the SA and submits that the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors had availed the loans and its repayment was secured by Mortgage. It is false to state that the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors have not defaulted in servicing the loan account. Due to default in the repayment by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors, the loan account was classified as NPA. The demand notice, possession notice and sale notice are issued to M/s. Sreenevasha Motors as per the procedure.

¶54

4.7 Applicants has not made out a single ground to assail the Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri in Crl.M.P.No.1344 of 2024 dated 24.05.2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and all the grounds raised by them in the Appeal are moonshine. The applicant has defaulted in servicing the loan. The Applicants account was declared NPA after scrupulously following all the Act, Rules guidelines and regulations. The auction sale was conducted on 30.10.2023 and the

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

property was sold to the successful bidder and the sale certificate is also issued in his favour on 23.11.2023.

¶59

4.8 It is the responsibility of the bank to hand over the physical possession of the property to the auction purchaser. The applicant under Section 14 of the SARFAESI, Act 2002 was filed before the CJM Dharmapuri. The physical possession of the Secured Asset was ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri in Crl.M.P.No.1344 of 2024 dated 24.05.2024 is valid and as per the law established. The Oral Arguments by both the parties in SA.No.586 of 2023 was completed and the Written Arguments is also filed as per the direction of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the applicant have not made out grounds to challenge the impugned notice.

¶60

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

¶61

The 1^st applicant is a partnership firm represented by its partners Mr. P. Kumaravel, the 2^nd applicant and Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy the third applicants herein. There is no dispute of availing Loan (OCC No.6138821938, 6539827729, 6865753526. SME-6612117966, 6865754950, Covid Emg-6875161811, 6875161775, GECLS-6884856449, 6884852569, 7133981128, 6875161866) which was to be repaid as per the terms of the sanction.

¶62

5.1 It is seen that the loan was availed by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors, a partnership concern and all the loan documents were executed by the partnership firm. It seen from the records that the borrowers have

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

executed the supplemental memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 24.05.2016, 23.09.2016 and 28.06.2017 favoring the respondent bank.

¶67

5.2 Further the deposit of title deeds dated 15.07.2023 is also executed by the 1^st and 2^nd applicants and the supplemental memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 04.03.2020, 05.05.2020 and 17.06.2020 is also executed which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar favoring the respondent bank. In fact the applicants does not dispute the availing of the credit facility mortgage of the properties as collateral security towards the credit facilities availed by the borrower M/s. Sreenevasha Motors. As they defaulted in the repayment the bank initiated the proceedings against M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and issued demand notice on 02.05.2022, the possession notice dated 19.09.2022, and sale notice dated 21.09.2023 to the partnership firm.

¶68

5.3 It seen from the records that the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors availed credit facilities as detailed in sale notice dated 21.09.2023 and there is no dispute with regard to the mortgage of the property and the outstanding amount due in the loan accounts. It is also admitted fact that the applicant have received that the 13(2) demand notice dated 02.05.2022.

¶69

5.4 The loan account was classified as NPA on various dates in respect of the loan accounts as per the RBI guidelines. Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued S. 13(2) demand notice dated 02.05.2022, where it seen that the parties are M/s. Sreenevasha Motors represented by its partners and the guarantors. The

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

S.13(2) demand notice clearly describes the types of loan availed, the nature of facility and the documents executed by the borrowers as well as by the guarantors.

¶74

5.5 Further the description of the mortgage property is clearly mentioned in the S.13(2) demand notice. The Sec.13(2) demand notice is sent by RPAD admittedly refused, and the notice sent to Mrs. K. Naveena is received on 04.06.2022 and the notice sent to P. Chakkaravarthy , C. Kalaimani and K. Naveena have returned as refused, when the notice sent by RPAD is refused it is deemed as served.

¶75

5.6 Further the contents of the demand notice is published in the Newspaper English daily Indian Express and Tamil Vernacular daily Dinamalar as evident from pg. 68 and 69 of the bank typeset.

¶76

5.7 In spite of receipt of the S.13(2) demand notice, the borrower and guarantors did not liquated the liability within the period of 60 days nor raised any objection to the demand made. Hence the respondent bank have proceeded further in issuing the possession notice under Sec.13(4) of the Act on 19.09.2022. The possession notice is also sent by RPAD, affixed on the property as per document produced at pg.92 of the typeset and possession notice also published in the two newspapers as required under the Act.

¶77

5.8 Thought the affixture of Sec.13(4) was made the applicant had not made any effort to settle the liability nor raised any objections as required under the Act.

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

5.9 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.

¶82

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

¶83

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

¶84

Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶85

“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

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

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 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”.

¶90

5.12 Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act statuses 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.

¶91

5.13 T hus, the Sec.14 order passed by the Ld. Section 14 order dated 24.05.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.1344/2024 passed by CJM, Dharmapuri 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 S. 14 [i-ix].

¶92

5.14 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 classifying the account as NPA.

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

5.15 Consequent to classification of account as NPA has issued S.13[2] demand notice followed by possession notice and have complied all the procedures as contemplated under the Act and the Rules with supporting documents. Thus it is held that the demand notice u/s S.13[2] dated 02.05.2022 and S.13[4] possession notice dated 19.09.2022 are held as valid notices issued under the Act. The Order passed by Ld. CJM in Crl.M.P. No.1344 of 2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri is held as valid and in accordance with law as prescribed under the Act.

¶97

5.16 Though the applicant has impugned S.14 order dated 24.05.2024, contentions are raised in respect of sale notice dated 21.09.2023, sale held on 30.10.2023, which the applicant had challenged in SA.No586/2023 and the Tribunal has already considered the same on merits and dismissed the SA.No.586.2023 on 16.09.2025.

¶98

5.17 For the foregoing reasons, the present SA is dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost. Sd/-

¶99

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

¶100

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 21^st day of October, 2025)

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶106

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Application u/s.17 of SARFAESI Act,2002 dated 29.05.2024.	A-1
2.	Sale Notice dated 21.09.2023.	A-2
3.	Application u/s. 17(1) of SARFAESI Act,2002 filed by the applicant in SA. No.586 of 2023	A-3
4.	Court Proceedings of the applicant showed his bonafide dated 28.11.2023.	A-4
5.	Payment Receipts	A-5
6.	Court Proceedings dated 02.02.2024.	A-6
7.	Petition filed u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.3055 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1344 of 2024 along with Translated copy dated 24.05.2024.	A-7
8.	Order in Crl.M.P.No.1344 of 2024 dated 24.05.2024.	A-8

¶107

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶108

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.906 of 2016, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of Respondent Bank dated 24.05.2016.	R-1
2.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.1658 of 2016, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of Respondent bank dated 23.09.2016.	R-2
3.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.824 of 2017, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of respondent bank dated 28.06.2017.	R-3
4.	Agreement relating to Deposit of Title Deeds, registered as Doc.No.1242 of 2013, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of respondent bank dated 15.07.2023.	R-4
5.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.420 of 2020, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of respondent bank dated 04.03.2020.	R-5
6.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title	R-6

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

	Deeds registered as Doc.No.635 of 2020, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of Respondent Bank dated 05.05.2020.
7.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.907 of 2020, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of respondent bank dated 17.06.2020.	R-7
8.	Demand Notice along with its return covers dated 02.05.2022.	R-8
9.	Paper Publication of Demand Notice both in English and Tamil daily dated 07.05.2022.	R-9
10.	Valuation Report dated 11.08.2023.	R-10
11.	Possession Notice dated 19.09.2022.	R-11
12.	Paper publication of Possession Notice both in English and Tamil daily dated 24.09.2022.	R-12
13.	Photo of Annexing the Possession Notice in the property dated 24.09.2022.	R-13
14.	Sale Notice dated 21.09.2023.	R-14
15.	Paper publication of Sale Notice both in English and Tamil daily dated 29.09.2023.	R-15
16.	Photo of Annexing the sale notice in the property.	R-16
17.	Sale Certificate in favour of Auction purchaser Mr. G. Balakrishnan dated 23.11.2023.	R-17
18.	Statement of Accounts.	R-18

¶113

SCHEDULE

¶114

DESCRIPTION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES

¶115

Property for Mr. P. Kumaravel and M. Chakkaravarthy:

¶116

Schedule of property:

¶117

All that piece and parcel of the land RCC Building situated in Karimangalam SRD, Dharmapuri SD, Karimangalam Taluk. Property Details – 1

¶118

S.No. 274/1A/1A, Measuring an area of 720 sq.ft.

¶119

Bounded with:

¶120

East of Property of Ganesan,

¶121

West of Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri Road,

¶122

North of Item - 2,

¶123

South of 10 Feet Common Road and measuring East West 72 feet and North South 10 feet.

¶124

Inclusive of Mammooway rights.

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

S.No. 274/1A1 & S.No.274/1A2, Measuring an area of 599 ¼ sq.ft

¶129

East of Property of Saravanan,

¶130

West of Property of Janaki,

¶131

North of Property of KTP,

¶132

South of Property of Ganesan and measuring East West on both the sides 25 ½ feet and North on both the sides 23 ½ feet.

¶133

S.No. 274/1A1, Measuring an area of 92 ¾ sq.ft

¶134

East of Property of Saravanan,

¶135

West of Property of Ganesan,

¶136

North of Property of Chakkaravarthy,

¶137

South of 10 Feet Common Road East West on both sides 3 ½ feet and North South on both the sides 26 ½ feet.

¶138

Property Details – 2

¶139

S.No. 274/1A/1A, Measuring an area of 228 ¼ sq.ft

¶140

East of Property of Ganesan,

¶141

West of Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri Road

¶142

North of Property of Ganesan,

¶143

South of Property of Chakkaravarthi and measuring East West 43 ½ feet and North South 5 ¼ feet.

¶144

S.No. 274/1A1A, Measuring an area of 285 sq.ft

¶145

East of Property of Ganesan,

¶146

West of Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri Road

¶147

North of Property of Janaki,

¶148

South of Property of Ganesan and measuring East West 43 ½ feet and

¶149

North South on both the side 4 ¾ feet.

¶150

S.No. 274/1A1A & 274/1A2, Measuring an area of 583 sq.ft

¶151

East of Property of Chakkaravarthi,

¶152

West of Property of Ganesan,

¶153

South of 10 feet Common Road

¶154

North of Property of Chakkaravarthi and measuring East West 22 feet and North South 26 ½ feet.

¶155

S.No. 274/1A3, Measuring an area of 206 ½ sq.ft

SA No.351/2024

21.10.2025

East of Property of Ganesan,

¶160

West of Krishnagiri to Dharmapuri Road,

¶161

South of Property of Ganesan,

¶162

North of Property of Janaki and Measuring East West on both the sides 43 ½ feet and North South both the sides 4 ¾ feet.

¶163

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

Ms Sreenevasha Motors rep by its partners P Kumaravel and P Chakkaravarthy v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sreenevasha Motors rep by its partners P Kumaravel and P Chakkaravarthy v. Indian 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

Mrs Vijyalakhsmi a S versus Hdfc Ltd.

Bank of India versus M s Oliva Exports And Imports

State Bank of India versus Pranesh Kumar

Canara Bank versus Anandhan

Indian Overseas Bank versus Prince

Yes Bank versus M/s. Svr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.