Dismissed

Elizabeth S v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

DRT8 Oct 2025SA/360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this secuitrization application, applicants challenged a possession notice issued by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act 2002. The Tribunal found that the bank had complied with all procedural requirements regarding NPA classification, demand notices, and possession notices, dismissing the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application stands dismissed; the demand notice and possession notice dated 30.04.2021 and 30.05.2023 are held valid.

Elizabeth S versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 08^th day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 360 of 2023

¶8

Elizabeth. S,

¶9

No.5, Bharathidasan Street, Padmavathy Nagar,

¶10

Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062.

¶11

E. Manikandan,

¶12

No.5, Bharathidasan Street,

¶13

Padmavathy Nagar,

¶14

Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062. ….Applicants

¶15

-Vs-

¶16

Authorised Officer, Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited, (Formerly Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., 4^th Floor, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Corporate Park, Garpatrao Kadam marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ….Respondent

¶17

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶18

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Thanu Madhan N.S Counsel for respondent : Mr. TKM Sai Krishnan

¶19

ORDER ON SA 360/2023

¶20

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 10.07.2023 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].

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

The applicant has challenged the Possession Notice dated 30.05.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession Notice is Rs.44,35,721/-

¶25

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶26

The applicant is the borrower who had availed Home Loan of Rs.45 Lakhs on 21.05.2015 and was regularly repaying the amount from the past 5 years. Due to Covid, the business suffered set back and the applicant committed default. Though the applicant has paid an amount of Rs.38,76,214/-, the bank have proceeded hurriedly taken steps under the SARFAESI Act and issued multiple Possession Notice.

¶27

In the grounds, it is contended that the classification of the account as NPA as 02.09.2021 in the Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 30.04.2021 against the RBI guidelines and the liability amount mentioned is wrong without giving the proper credit.

¶28

The bank has not served the demand notice to all the borrowers, hence the valuable right of the other borrowers under section 13(3A) is denied. The bank have proceeded further in issuing the possession notice which is not in accordance with Rule 8(1) & 8(2) and there is no publication of the possession notice as required under Rule 8(1) within 7 days nor the possession notice is affixed on the property.

¶29

The bank has failed to obtain valuation as prescribed under Rule 8(5) which clearly shows that the reserve price fixed by the bank is very lower and arbitrary.

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

The demand notice and the possession notice the schedule of the property is described has of land and building, where the land is measuring about 1960 sq.ft., and the building area is 3500 sq.ft. The bank has issued multiple Sec.13(4) possession notices on 06.10.2021, 16.02.2022 and 30.05.2023 which is in violation of Rule 8(1) & 8(2). Further the possession notice is not served on the applicants and the third Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 30.05.2023 is defective, hence prays to set aside the Sec.13(4) possession notice, restore the possession of the property as per 17(3)(b) of the Act.

¶34

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶35

The respondent bank has filed the counter along with the documents in support of the measures taken by them contending that the respondent offers different loan facilities to its customers from time to time based on the policy and the applicant approach the respondent, availed a loan against property under the Loan Code 00001429 to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) on 21.05.2015.

¶36

Applicant executed loan agreements and other relevant documents, the facts are not disputed by the applicants in the present SA. In order to secure the repayment, the applicant had created mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds in respect of the property which is registered in its respective SRO, which is also not disputed by the applicants.

¶37

As the applicants failed to repay the EMI amounts on schedule dates as contemplated under the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement in

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

spite of many reminders calls, the applicants did not repay the outstanding amount and failed to adhere to the terms of the contract. Hence the account was classified as NPA on 09.02.2021. In fact the applicants have admitted that they failed to service the loan in para V(3) and in the grounds in para V(I), V(V), V(VI) and V(VII) with respect to the classification of the loan account as NPA is contradicting and misleading.

¶42

In fact the respondent have followed the guidelines of the RBI, which is in accordance with the section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act, and then have classified the loan account. The applicants failed to remit the outstanding due and after the classification of the account as NPA, the bank have issued Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 30.04.2021 under section 13(2) of the Act, calling upon the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.44,35,721/due as on 31.03.2021.

¶43

The demand notice was dispatched to the applicants, published in the two leading newspapers one in vernacular language, Tamil newspaper and the other in English newspaper dated 24.06.2021. The service of the demand notice was completed as envisaged in Rule 3(1) of the security interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.

¶44

Even after the knowledge of the demand notice, the applicants neither made any representation to the respondent nor settled the loan amount within 60 days, and the respondent was ready for any amicable settlement provided the proposal for settlement is within the framework of the financial business parlance.

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

The respondent subsequently issued the possession notice dated 30.05.2023 under section 13(4) of the Act, which was dispatched to the applicant and affixed on the property. Further it is also published in two leading newspapers one in vernacular language Tamil newspaper and another in English newspaper on 01.06.2023. The respondent have followed all the procedures as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rules 3(1), 8(1) & (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, and have also produced the supporting documents for due service of the possession notice.

¶49

However, the applicants has filed the present SA, which clearly establishes by intention of the applicants to drag on the legal proceedings and not to settle the matter. The contention that the respondent has charged the excessive interest is denied and the interest charged are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement which has been expressly executed by the applicants herein.

¶50

The averments as made in the SA is with an intention to mislead the Hon’ble Tribunal for his wrongful gains and the bank has followed the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in order dated 11.10.2017 in W.A. No.367 of 2017 in case titled M. Lilly Vs District Collector contending

¶51

that it has been well settled principle of Law that any party who had approached the court with misleading facts with an intention to mislead the court should not be given any relief sought by them.

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

The respondent have followed all the measures and have established the due compliance of the measures taken by the under the Act, and prays for the dismissal of the SA.

¶56

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

¶57

The records of the case reflects that the 1^st applicant is the Borrower and the 2^nd applicant is Co-Borrower who had availed housing loan of Rs.45 lakhs on 21.05.2015 and had executed all the loan documents and had mortgaged the property bearing No. No.5 Bharathidasan Street Padmavathy Nagar Thirumullaivoyal Chennai Tamil Nadu: 600 062 as collateral security towards the credit facilities availed by them.

¶58

In fact there is no dispute about availing the loan, creation of the mortgage and the default in the repayment. The applicant has raised contention that the classification of the Account as NPA in not as per RBI guidelines. However, has not made out any specific grounds/reasons to how the account is wrongly classified as NPA. On the other hand, applicant also admits the default in the repayment and had paid an amount of Rs.38,76,214/- which is not in terms of the schedule repayment which clearly reflects that due to irregularity in the repayment, the account was classified as NPA as per RBI guidelines.

¶59

After the classification of the account as NPA, the bank have issued the demand notice dated 30.04.2021 which is produced by the bank at pg.8-21 of the typeset which clearly reflects the details of the Borrower and

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

the Co-Borrower the loan amount disbursed and the outstanding loan as amount due towards the loan account. The date of NPA is mentioned and have claiming the total outstanding amount due to be repaid within the period of 60 days as required under the Act. Further the notice also draws attention to section 13(3) and 13(8) bringing to the notice of the redemption clause available to the applicants herein. It seen that the Sec.13(2) demand notice was not properly served, hence the respondent have published the demand notice in English newspaper Indian Express, Tamil Nadu/South dated 24.06.2021 and in Tamil Newspaper Dhinamani dated 24.06.2021.

¶64

Further the notice is also affixed on the secured asset as per the photograph of the affixer produced at pg.19-21 of the counter. In spite of applicant being aware of the issuance of the Sec.13(2) demand notice they did not clear the entire outstanding amount within 60 days nor raised any objections to the demand notice under section 13(3A). Hence the respondent have issued the Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 30.05.2023 which sent by RPAD as per postal receipts at pg.24.

¶65

It is seen that S.13(4) possession notice is delivered, as per the tracking consignment from pg.25–27, the possession notice is also published in the two newspapers one in English The New Indian Express and another in Tamil Dhinamani dated 01.06.2023 and have affixed on the property as per the affixture of the S.13(4) possession notice which is produced at pg.30 and 31.

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

Thus it seen that the respondent bank as secured creditor has classified the account as NPA on 02.09.2021 and consequent to classification of account NPA have issued the Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 30.04.2021 which is duly served as per the procedure and on failure to repay the outstanding amount due the respondent have issued the Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 30.05.2023 which is challenged in the present SA.

¶70

Further the documents produced by the respondent clearly establishes the due compliance of the procedures in issuing the statutory notices by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules made thereunder. Hence, the Tribunal comes to inevitable conclusion that the demand notice dated 30.04.2021 and the possession notice dated 30.05.2023 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶71

The applicants though have challenged the possession notice dated 30.05.2023 failed to establish any irregularity/violation of the procedures in initiating the measures under the Act.

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

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

¶75

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 08^th day of October, 2025)

SA No.360/2023

08.10.2025

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶81

Sl. No.	Description of Documents		Documents No.
1.	13(2) Demand Notice dated 30.04.2021.		A-1
2.	13(4) Possession Notice dated 06.10.202	1.	A-2
3.	13(4) Possession Notice dated 16.02.202	2.	A-3
4.	13(4) Impugned Possession Notice 30.05.2023.	dated	A-4
5.	Publication of 13(4) Possession Notice New Indian Express News Paper 01.06.2023.	in the dated	A-5
6.	Postal Cover dated 05.06.2023.		A-6
7.	Piramal Statement of Account 30.06.2022.	dated	A-7
8.	Applicants Aadhar cards dated 10.07.202	3.	A-8
9.	Vakalathnama dated 10.07.2023.		A-9
10.	Fact Sheet dated 10.07.2023.		A-10

¶82

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶83

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	A Copy of the Demand Notice issued U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act along with its Despatch Proof, Paper Publications and Affixture dated 30.04.2021.	R-1
2.	A Copy of the Possession Notice issued U/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act along with its Despatch Proof, Service Proof, Paper Publications and Affixture dated 30.05.2023.	R-2

¶84

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES

¶85

SCHEDULE ‘A’ OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES

¶86

No.5, Bharathidasan Street, Padmavathy Nagar, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062. Boundaries: North by: Plot No.4, South by: 20 Ft road, East by: 25 Ft road, West by: 5 West Portion.

¶87

Sd/-

¶88

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

Elizabeth S v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elizabeth S v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus Indukanan

G Mahalakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Mr Madhankumar Ramalingam versus Federal Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Mr Magbul Basha Nalband And Other

Bank of India versus Prameela

State Bank of India versus M/s. Srp Aquaman