Applicant challenged Section 14 order for possession. Tribunal held Section 14 powers are ministerial, not adjudicatory. Upon verifying compliance, Tribunal dismissed the application to set aside the order.
The Securitization Application challenging the Section 14 order is dismissed with costs to the respondents in the discretion of the Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SA No.352/2023
1
11.06.2025
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
SA No. 352 of 2023
Mrs. Mohanasundari, (F / A 54 years) W/o Late Umapathy No.1/346 Jothi Nagar, Third Street, Kelambakkam,
Kanchipuram District – 603 103. ….Applicant
-Vs-
No. 10, 1st floor, Opp. Punjab National Bank,
4th Main Road, Anna Nagar West,
Chennai 600 040.
Having office at
Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Mr. V. Gomathi Shankar.
Both R. Sivakumar and S. Jayasudha are residing at, Block No.28, No.B, 3rd Floor / 3-B,
Nellikuppam Village,
SA No.352/2023
2
11.06.2025
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S. Sukumar Counsel for respondent : M/s. A. Ilangovan
ORDER ON SA 352 /2023
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].
3. Pleadings of the applicant:
3.1 The applicant has filed the present S.A on 13.06.2023 challenging the order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpet on the Order dated 09.12.2021 in Crl. M.P. No.6955 of 2021, appointing an Advocate commissioner to take the physical possession of the property. The Advocate Commissioner visited the property on 22.05.2023 and affixed the notice on the mortgage property and then the applicant got knowledge on 22.05.2023, immediately the applicant filed
SA No.352/2023
3
11.06.2025
Writ petition No.17070 of 2023 along with grant leave petition in W.M.P. No.15759 of 2023 in W.P.S.R. No.67556 of 2023 on 25.05.2023 and the Hon’ble High Court of Madras granted liberty to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal within two weeks from the date of the order.
3.2 The applicant is neither borrower, Guarantor nor the mortgagor and claims to be the lawful owner of the property who had purchased vacant plot measuring an extent of 2,170 Sq.ft. on 19.08.2014 vide document No.3426 of 2004 comprised in New Survey No.80/26, bearing plot No.17, situate at jothi nagar layout, Kelambakkam Village, Tiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, from one Vasu, Son of Radhakrishnan.
3.3 The Applicant purchased the property by selling ancestral property and family property, constructed a building and residing there on from 2009 onwards. As the applicant in need of money for the marriage expenses of younger daughter and approached Rajaram who is known to applicant for past 20 years doing pawn broker business and executed the mortgage in respect of the property for the purpose of security and obtained un dated plain cheque from the applicant.
3.4 The applicant believing Rajaram agreed for registration of the mortgage deed for the proposed loan of Rs.30,00,000/- registered the said mortgage, signed the documents which are in English language and the applicant didn’t know the contents of the document. It is seen that the documents is registered as sale deed in respect of the property in favour of one Mr.Sivakumar who is second respondent an associate of Rajaram vide
SA No.352/2023
4
11.06.2025
document No.8182 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruporur and Rajaram made to believe that applicant executed a mortgage deed for a sum of Rs.30 lakhs.
3.5 In fact in the month of April 2019 the officials of respondent visited the property and informed that loan was borrowed for a sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/- and sale deed registered vide document No.8183 of 2017 and there is a due to the bank to tune of Rs.1,41,26,633/- in name of Sivakumar and his wife Jayasutha. Further on verification the applicant came to know about execution of Mortgage Deed favoring the 2nd , 3rd , 4th , respondent who is the jewel appraiser in Citi Union Bank, Thiruporur Branch have jointly convinced the applicant to execute sale deed and on the very same day credited a sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/- into the applicant account maintained in Citi Union Bank and transferred the same to the account of Rajaram who has hatched a conspiracy joined together
3.6 The applicant had lodged a complaint on 30.04.2019 with Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District to take appropriate criminal action against the wrong doers. Pursuant to the complaint an FIR was registered in Crime No.24 of 2019 on 24.07.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420 and Section 34 of IPC against the respondents and the Rajaram and filed charge sheet in C.C.No.437 of 2021 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Chengalpattu.
SA No.352/2023
11.06.2025
5
3.7 It is contended that the sale deed is created by misrepresentation and playing fraud on the applicant by the respondent and in fact the sale consideration was not passed out as mentioned in the sale deed for a sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/- and the property was mortgaged with REPCO bank for the sale consideration for a sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/. The first respondent officials are involved in the crime and in the conspiracy and the sale deed executed on 10.08.2017 is not valid in the eyes of the law and the mortgage was executed in favor of the bank is null and void.
3.8 It is contended that the first respondent Repco Home finance has filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.6955 of 2021 and respondent surpassed all the facts and applicant filed W.P.No. 17070 of 2023 along with petition to grant leave in W.M.P. No.15759 of 2023 in W.P.S.R.No.67566 of 2023 came up hearing on 25.05.2023 passed the following order:-
“The applicant who claims to the owner of the property registered a Criminal complaint as against the persons who have set up title against her therefore, leave is granted.
Registry is directed to number the Writ petition”.
3.9 As per the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras the writ petition was numbered as W.P. No.17070 of 2023 and given liberty to approach before this Hon’ble Tribunal. The first respondent in order to harass the applicant approached the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpet and obtained an order dated 09.12.2021 for taking
SA No.352/2023
6
11.06.2025
physical possession of the property, it is settled principals of law that the persons who are in possession of law are to be heard before passing an order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. Hence aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpet dated 09.12.2021 in Crl. M.P.No.6955 of 2021 present S.A.
3.10 It is contended in the grounds that the order is against the evidences and probabilities of the case and the same is without proper notice to the applicant and in violations of the principal of natural justice and learned Magistrate failed to note that the criminal case is pending, hence the order is unsustainable
3.11 Further the mandatory procedures as contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not complied and the order is silent on aspect of receipt of the Section 13(2) demand notice and Section 13(4) Possession notice. Though the first respondent fully aware that applicant is the lawful owner of the physical possession of the property has suppressed and obtained order against the principles of natural justice and the applicant has not made a party to the proceedings which suffers from necessary parties, hence the entire proceedings is vitiated. The applicant prays to set aside all the measures taken by the respondent bank through order dated 09.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.6955 of 2021 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram, Chengalpet District.
SA No.352/2023
11.06.2025
7
4. Objections of the respondent bank:
4.1 The Respondent Bank has filed their Counter Affidavit inter alia contending that the present SA is not maintainable.
4.2 It is the case of the respondent that the 2nd respondent Mr. Sivakumar is the borrower and his wife 3rd respondent Mrs. Jayasudha is the co-borrower and the 4th respondent Mr. Thirunavukkarasu stood as guarantor for the House Flat Loan of Rs.1,37,00,000/- vide loan account No.2151870000246 on 04.08.2017 from the first respondent. The borrower had agreed to repay the said loan amount in 180 EMIs of Rs.1,45,133/and as security for the due repayment, the 2nd respondent had created equitable mortgage over the property S.No.80/26 measuring an extent 2170 sq.ft. situated at Jothy Nagar, 3rd Street, in Old No.42, New No.17, Kelambakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District by way of deposit of title deeds dated on 10.08.2017 in Doc.No.8183 of 2017 .
4.3 The 2nd respondent Mr. Sivakumar and his wife 3rd respondent Mrs.Jayasudha had availed another Take over-floating loan of Rs.56,00,000/- vide loan account No.2151870000284 on 15.12.2017 and have agreed to repay the loan amount in 240 EMIs of Rs.47,892/-. Further Mr. Sivakumar and Mrs. Jayasudha had availed another loan for Purchase – commercial – fixed loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- vide loan account No.2151813000285 on 15.12.2017 and agreed to repay the loan amount in 120 EMIs of Rs.1,52,274/-.
SA No.352/2023
8
11.06.2025
4.4 As security for the due repayment, 2nd respondent Mr.Sivakumar created mortgage over the properties (i) Old S.No. 109/A, Gramma Natham New survey No.120/2, as per patta No.67, situated in santor street, Village No.25, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and (ii) Three bedroom Apartments-B in the 3rd floor, Block No.28 at Chennaipattinam, Nellukuppam, Guduvancherry Road, Chengalpet Taluk, Ammapet, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu-603 108, as collateral security. Further the loans were guaranteed by Mr. Monesh, the respondent have created security interest over the said properties and the same is also registered with CERSAI.
4.5 After the borrowers availed the loan miserably failed to adhere the repayment terms and in spite of repeated assurances by the borrowers, the loan account remained irregular. Hence the loan accounts slipped into NPA status on 01.04.2019, the borrowers and guarantors ignored to regularize the account, hence the bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act and issued the Section 13(2) demand notice on 14.06.2019, the demand notice was duly served on the guarantor and the borrower and co-borrower evaded the service of Section 13(2) demand notice
4.6 Hence in Section 13(2) demand notice dated 14.06.2019 was affixed on the said property and also published in two leading Newspapers one in “New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dhinmani” (Tamil) on 13.07.2019. The respondent have produced the returned cover, affixture photograph, paper publications in evidence of service of Section 13(2) demand notice dated 14.06.2019.
SA No.352/2023
9
11.06.2025
4.7 In spite of service of the Section 13(2) demand notice, the borrowers were evading the payments, hence the bank sent Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 17.09.2019 by taking symbolic possession of the property, the Section 13(4) possession notice was also returned “left”. Hence the bank has published the Section 13(4) Possession notice published in two leading Newspapers one in “New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dhinmani” (Tamil) on 17.09.2019 and the same was affixed on the conspicuous part of the property and the return covers, affixture photograph are produced by the bank as proof of service of Section 13(4) Possession notice
4.8 After the service of the Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 17.09.2019, borrower promised to regularize the loan account, however they failed to honour their commitments. Hence the 1st respondent has issued sale notices dated 24.12.2019, 04.09.2021 which didn’t materialized for want of bidders.
4.9 The Respondent issued 3rd E-Auction sale notice dated 26.10.2021 scheduling the sale to be held on 24.11.2021, and the property at Old S.No. 109/A, Gramma Natham New survey No.120/2, as per patta No.67, situated in santor street, Village No.25, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District was sold for a sum of Rs.1,07,75,000/- and the sale certificate is registered in favor of the auction purchaser.
4.10 The Three bedroom Apartment-B in the 3rd floor, Block No.28 at Chennaipattinam, Nellukuppam, Guduvancherry Road, Chengalpet Taluk,
SA No.352/2023
10
11.06.2025
Ammapet, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 603 108 and S.No.80/26 measuring an extend of 2170 sq.ft situated at Jothy Nagar, 3rd street, in Old No.42, New No.17, Kelambakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, were not sold for want of physical possession.
4.11 The applicant is the 3rd party is vendor of the subject property, and sold property for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1,38,00,000/- on 10.08.2017 vide Doc.No.8182/2017, has no legal right , title over the property and cannot maintain the present SA is challenging the S.14 Order.
4.12 It is admitted fact that the applicant Mrs. Mohanasundari in need of money for her daughter’s marriage mortgaged the property to Mr.Rajaram for a sum of Rs.30 lakhs executed mortgage deed with her knowledge and now contends that her signature was obtained in sale deed in favor of the 2nd respondent on 10.08.2017 is contrary to the documents.
4.13 Further allegations that the bank officials visited premises in the month of April 2019 then only applicant came to know that sale deed was executed without her knowledge, hence applicant filed a criminal case against the 2nd and 3rd respondent and F.I.R was registered. It is the case of the respondent that as per the records available with the 1st respondent financial institutions the applicant here in Mrs.Mohanasundari had entered into an sale agreement on 03.07.2017 for the sale of the property for a sum of Rs.2.00 crores and applicant have received an amount of Rs.10 lakhs by way of cheque No.000177 drawn on City Union Bank. As per the
SA No.352/2023
11
11.06.2025
valuation report dated 24.07.2017 value of the property is Rs.1,71,95,650/-
4.14 The applicant has entered the sale agreement dated 03.07.2017 for a consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and receipt of cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- the applicants husband Mr. Umapathi along with her son in law Mr.karthikeyan have signed as witness in English and they also signed as witness in deposit of title deeds dated 10.08.2017, hence the contention that applicant is an illiterate is a false case.
4.15 The applicants with an illegal intention to usurp the entire property had filed a false complaint before the police. The statement of accounts clearly reflects that the applicant had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the date of execution of sale deed dated 10.08.2017 to honor the cheque. Hence the Respondent bank submits that the entire case of the applicant is bogus and prays to dismiss the present SA.
Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case .
5.1 The applicant is the 3rd party has filed the present SA impugning the Section 14 order dated 09.12.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.6955 of 2021 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram, Chengalpet District. The case as put forth by the applicant is that she was the original owner of the property who had purchased the property had mortgaged the property to one Raja ram by executing the mortgaged deed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-.
SA No.352/2023
12
11.06.2025
5.2 It is alleged that the Rajaram along with the repsondnets played fraud and executed sale deed favoring 2nd respondent R.Siva Kumar and his wife Mrs. S.Jayasudhaa and has produced the sale deed dated 10.08.2017 for sale consideration of Rs.1,37,00,000/- which is produced at page No.32 of SA applcaints doucmentsavailed Rs.1,37,00,000/- Mortgage deed was executed on the property for a sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/- vide sale deed which is registered as Doc.No.8183 of 2017, where in the vendor have proposed to sell the Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor, and Third Floor residential house having super built up area of 6247 sq.ft, measuring an extent of 2170 sq.ft., and it is seen that the applicant have received a sum of Rs.1,38,00,000/- is paid by the Respondent bank Repco Home finance limited vide cheque No.562800 dated 10.08.2017 drawn on ICICI bank, Nungambakkam branch in favor of the vendor that is Mrs. Mohanasundari.
5.3 After receipt of the entire sale consideration applicant now contents of fraud and has filed FIR which is registered as Crime No.24 of 2019 on 24.07.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420 and Section 34 of IPC against the respondents and the Rajaram which is pending adjudication.
5.4 The applicant have executed the sale deed dated 03.07.2017 favoring
the borrower Mr. R. Sivakumar and Mrs. S. Jaya sudha who have mortgaged the property in favoring the Respondent bank towards the loan availed by them, the sale deed clearly reflects the receipt of the sale consideration.
SA No.352/2023
13
11.06.2025
5.5 Mr. R. Siva kumar as borrower and Mrs. S. Jaya sudha as co-borrower and the 4th respondent Mr. S. Thirunavukkarasu stood as guarantor to the House flat loan of Rs.1,37,00,000/- which is sanctioned to vide loan Account No.2151870000246 on 04.08.2017 which was to be repaid in 180 EMIs
5.6 The borrower have mortgaged the property in S.No.80/26 measuring an extent of 2170 sq.ft. situated at Jothy Nagar, 3rd Street, in Old No.42, New No.17, Kelambakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram by way of deposit of title deeds dated on 10.08.2017 registered as Doc.No.8183 of 2017.
5.7 It is also seen from the records that Mr. Siva kumar and Mrs. Jaya sudha had also availed a Take over-floating loan of Rs.56,00,000 vide loan account No.2151870000284 on 15.12.2017 and agreed to repay the loan amount in 240 EMIs. Further Mr. Siva kumar and Mrs. Jaya sudha had availed another loan for purchase of commercial fixed loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- vide loan Account No.2151813000285 on 15.12.2017 and agreed to repay the loan amount in 120 EMIs
5.8 Towards the repayments of the loan 2nd respondent Mr.Sivakumar have created a mortgage over the properties (i) Old S.No. 109/A, Gramma Natham New survey No.120/2, as per patta No.67, situated in santor street, Village No.25, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and (ii) Three bedroom Apartments-B in the 3rd floor, Block No.28 at Chennaipattinam, Nellukuppam, Guduvancherry Road, Chengalpet Taluk, Ammapet,
SA No.352/2023
14
11.06.2025
Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu-603 108, as collateral security. Further the loans were guaranteed by Mr. Monesh, the respondent have created security interest over the said properties and the same is also registered with CERSAI.
5.9 Due to default in the repayments, the account have been classified as NPA on 01.04.2019 followed by the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 14.06.2019 which was issued by the respondent. Though the borrowers and guarantor have received the Section 13(2) Demand Notice and they didn’t raised any objections and in fact the Section 13(2) Demand Notice is sent to Mr. S. Thirunavukkarasu who is 4th respondent here in. The bank in compliance of the procedures have affixed the Section 13(2) Demand Notice on the property and also published the Section 13(2) Demand Notice in two Newspapers, one in “The New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dhinamani” (Tamil) both dated on 13.07.2019
5.10 In spite of service of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice, the borrowers and the guarantor didn’t repaid the amount resulting in the respondent to issue Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 17.09.2019 to take the symbolic possession and it is also sent to the address of the 2nd and 3rd respondent and returned with endorsement “left”. The bank in furtherance to the measures, published the possession notice in two Newspapers one in “The New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dhinamani” (Tamil) both dated on 22.09.2019 and also affixed on the property. Thus Respondent bank have compelled with the procedures as mandated in issuing the statutory notices.
SA No.352/2023
15
11.06.2025
5.11 As the borrowers, guarantor didn’t liquidate the liability the bank has issued E-Auction Sale notice dated 26.10.2021 scheduling the property to be sold on 24.11.2021 and the property at Old S.No. 109/A, Gramma Natham New survey No.120/2, as per patta No.67, situated in santor street, Village No.25, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District was sold for a sum of Rs.1,07,75,000/- and the Sale Certificate is also issued to the successful Auction Purchaser.
5.12 However the Three bedroom Apartment-B in the 3rd floor, Block No.28 at Chennaipattinam, Nellukuppam, Guduvancherry Road, Chengalpet Taluk, Ammapet, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 603 108 and S.No.80/26 measuring an extend of 2170 sq.ft situated at Jothy Nagar, 3rd street, in Old No.42, New No.17, Kelambakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, were not sold for want of bidders
5.13 Though the challenge in the present SA is in respect of Section 14 order dated 09.12.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.6955 of 2021 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram, Chengalpet District has raised all contention in respect of S.13[2] demand notice and S.13[]4 possession notice which the respondent have countered along with supporting documents establishing the due compliances of the measures initiated as prescribed under the Act and the Rules.
SA No.352/2023
16
11.06.2025
that the applicant got knowledge on 22.05.2023 the date on which advocate commission visited the property.
5.15 The applicant without exhausting the right of appeal under S.17 filed a Writ Petition No.17070 of 2023 seeking of leave in WMP No.15759 of 2023 in W.P.SR No.67556 of 2023. It is seen that the applicant have challenged the Section 14 order dated 09.12.2021 and has not made any case of irregularity or violation of the measures by the secured creditor in compliance of the Section 14 (i) to (ix)
5.16 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 nonadjudicatory 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.
5.17 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:
SA No.352/2023
17
11.06.2025
“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 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”.
5.18 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak 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.”
5.19 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. 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 is passed by the Ld. CJM after due consideration the
SA No.352/2023
18
11.06.2025
compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix] is only an execution order where no adjudication is required. As the applicant has failed to make out
a case for interference of this Tribunal in S.14 Order, it is only to be dismissed.
Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 11th day of June, 2025)
ANNEXURES
LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT
| Sl. No. |
Description of Documents | Page No. |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Grounds of application filed u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 10.06.2023 |
A-1 |
| 2. | Sale Deed in favour of the applicant 19.08.2004 | A-2 |
| 3. | Impugned sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the 2ndrespondent 10.08.2017 |
A-3 |
| 4. | Mortgage deed executed by the 2ndrespondent in favour of the REPCO Bank 10.08.2017 |
A-4 |
| 5. | Statement of accounts furnished by City Union Bank 25.04.2019 |
A-5 |
| 6. | Complaint sent by the applicant to the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District with acknowledgement 29.04.2019 |
A-6 |
SA No.352/2023
19
11.06.2025
| 7. | FIR in Crime No.24 of 2019 on the file of Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (SCS- II), Kanchipuram District. 24.07.2019 |
A-7 |
|---|---|---|
| 8. | Order in Crl.M.P.No.3885 or 2021 05.08.2021 | A-8 |
| 9. | Impugned Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu 09.12.2021 |
A-9 |
| 10. | Notice issued by the Advocate commissioner 22.05.2023 |
A-10 |
| 11. | Order in W.M.P. No.15759 of 2023 in W.P.Sr.No.67556 of 2023 25.05.2023 |
A-11 |
| 12. | Order in W.P.No.17070 of 2023 | A-12 |
| 13. | Vakalat | A-13 |
LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET
| Sl. No. |
Description of Documents | Page No. |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Sale agreement 03.07.2017 | R-1 |
| 2. | Valuation report 24.07.2017 | R-2 |
| 3. | Loan sanction letter in A/C No.2151870000246 04.08.2017 |
R-3 |
| 4. | Agreement relating to deposit of title deeds 10.08.2017 |
R-4 |
| 5. | Loan sanction letter in A/C No.2151811000284 15.12.2017 |
R-5 |
| 6. | Loan sanction letter in A/C No.2151813000285 15.12.2017 |
R-6 |
| 7. | Agreement relating to deposit of title deeds 28.12.2017 |
R-7 |
| 8. | CERSAI Report | R-8 |
| 9. | 13(2) Demand Notice with return covers and Acknowledgement card 14.06.2019 |
R-9 |
| 10. | Affixture photograph of 13(2) demand notice | R-10 |
| 11. | 13(2) Demand Notice published in English daily “The New Indian Express”13.07.2019 |
R-11 |
| 12. | 13(2) Demand Notice published in Tamil daily “Dhinamani”13.07.2019 |
R-12 |
| 13. | 13(4) Possession Notice with return covers and acknowledgement cards 17.09.2019 |
R-13 |
| 14. | Affixture photograph of 13(4) Possession notice | R-14 |
| 15. | 13(4) Possession Notice published in English daily“The New Indian Express”22.09.2019 |
R-15 |
| 16. | 13(4) Possession Notice published in Tamil daily “Dhinamani”22.09.2019 |
R-16 |
| 17. | E-Auction sale notice 24.12.2019 | R-17 |
SA No.352/2023
20
11.06.2025
| 18. | E-Auction sale notice 04.09.2019 | R-18 |
|---|---|---|
| 19. | E-Auction sale notice 26.10.2019 | R-19 |
| 20. | Statement of Accounts | R-20 |
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential House site Door
No.1/346 with ground floor, first floor, and 3rd floor having its super built up area 6247 sq.ft measuring an extent of 2,170 sq.ft. out of 2.82 Acres bearing Plot No.17, (include EB Connection, Water Tax and House Tax) comprised in Old S. Nos. 77, 78/1, 78/2, 78/3, 80/1, 96/2A, 96/2B as per
Patta No.286, New S.No 80/26 in Jothi Nagar Layout situated at, Old
No.42, New No.17, Kelambakkam Village, Tiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, bounded on the :-
North by – Plot No.14,
South by – 15 Feet Road
East by – Plot No.16
West by – Plot No.18
Lying within the Registration District of Chengalpet and the Sub Registration District of Thiruporur
Sd/(S.V.GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with the Section 14 order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Whether the secured creditor complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the applicant, as a third party claiming ownership, has locus standi to challenge the possession proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of MaharashtraReferred¶135
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd.Relied on¶135
Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd.
Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Relied on¶137
Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Mohanasundari
M/s. REPCO Home Finance Limited
R. Sivakumar
S. Jayasudha
S. Thirunavukkarasu
S. V. Gowramma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. V. Gowramma
Parties & counsel
