Dismissed

Ms Deepa Stores K. Gurusamy K Jansi v. Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

DRT24 Nov 2025SA/369/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's challenge to the Magistrate's Section 14 order granting relief for possession. It held that the Secured Creditor complied with statutory notice requirements and that Section 14 is a ministerial execution process where the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application challenging the Section 14 order was dismissed with no interim order.

Ms Deepa Stores K. Gurusamy K Jansi versus Union Bank of India… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 369 of 2024

¶8

M/s. Deepa Stores, Prop. Mr. K. Gurusamy, Door No.55, Theradi Street, Maduranthakam, Chengalpattu District – 603 306.

¶9

Mr. K. Gurusamy, S/o. Mr. Kadarkarai, Door No.55, Theradi Street, Maduranthakam, Chengalpattu District – 603 306.

¶10

Mrs. K. Jansi W/o. Mr. K. Gurusamy, Door No.55, Theradi Street, Maduranthakam, Chengalpattu District – 603 306. ….Applicants

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

Union Bank of India (Formerly Corporation Bank) Maduranthagam Branch, No.44/100, G.S.T. Road, Maduranthagam, Kancheepuram District 603 306. Represented by its Authorised Officer J. Vetriselvan. …Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G. Magesh Kumar Counsel for respondent : M/s. K. Radhakrishnamurthy

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

ORDER ON SA 369/2024

¶18

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 19.06.2024 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].

¶19

The applicant has challenged Sec.14 order dated 31.05.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.1091 of 2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpat and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.62,50,900/-

¶20

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶21

3.1 The applicants availed Rs.10 lakhs in the year 2011 and closed. Subsequently applicant availed a Housing Loan of Rs.79 Lakhs and extended the property as security by creating equitable mortgage. The applicant was prompt in making of payment towards the credit facility, however due to financial crunch, they were unable to pay the monthly repayments. Hence the account was classified as NPA in a hurried manner.

¶22

3.2 Applicant met the respondent officials requesting some time to regularize the loan account and not to take any coercive measures. The applicant came to know that Sec.14 order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Ld. CJM, Chengalpat in Crl.M.P.No.1091/2024, and the advocate commissioner Ms. P. Jayashree had sent a vacate notice dated 08.06.2024 intimating to execute the order dated 31.05.2024. The applicant

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

immediately verified the A-Dairy of the CJM’s Court and came to know about the Sec.14 order being passed.

¶27

3.3 In the impugned order, the bank claims to have issued the demand notice dated 28.06.2021 and possession notice dated 17.03.2023 which was never served on the applicant. Without serving proper demand and possession notice, bank has filed Sec.14 application without complying the with mandate under Sec.14(1)(b) of the SARFAESI Act. It is further contented that the bank has not registered the security interest before the Central Registry as per Section 26(D). Hence the respondent cannot take action under the SARFAESI Act and the officer is not an authorized officer within the definition and does not possess the necessary qualification to file an application.

¶28

3.4 In spite of regular repayments, the credit facility was declared as NPA on 30.03.2021 and have claimed higher amount than the outstanding due. In the grounds, it is contented that the measure taken by the bank is without any basis and contrary to the terms of the sanction as there is no security registered before the central registry as per Section 26D.

¶29

3.5 The respondent bank has failed to mention the different total outstanding amount due in each notice, have charged interest and other charges to their whims and fancies. Hence the demand notice and possession notice are contrary to law and are proceeding to evict the applicant.

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

3.6 The respondent bank has not filed the mandatory affidavit as contemplated under sec.14(1)(b) and the magistrate has allowed the application which required to be set aside. Further, the possession notice dated 17.03.2023 is not published in the two newspapers as mandated under the Act, nor affixed in conspicuous part of the property as in Rule 8(1) of the security interest Rules.

¶34

3.7 One these grounds the applicants prays to set aside the Sec.14 order dated 31.05.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.1091 of 2024 passed by CJM, Chengalpat.

¶35

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶36

4.1 The respondent in their counter contents that the SA is not maintainable as the applicant is estopped from challenging the measure taken under Sec.13(2) and Sec.13(4) as they full knowledge of the entire proceedings under Sec.13. The respondent have followed all the rules as required in the process of recovery under Sec.13(4), Rule 8 & 9 with supporting documents.

¶37

4.2 It is the case of the respondent bank that the applicant had availed various financial assistance to the tune of Rs.63,50,000/- comprising of COPOD Facility of Rs.45 lakhs on 11.12.2015, Home Loan of Rs.10 lakhs and DLSEC facility of Rs.8.5 Lakhs on 09.10.2017 by creating an equitable mortgage over the schedule property in favor of respondent bank. Due to non-repayment of the loan, the loan account was classified as NPA on 30.03.2021 and demand notice Sec.13(2) was issued on 28.06.2021.

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

4.3 All the applicant have signed the demand notice and have acknowledged the receipt, but failed to respond to the notices. Subsequently, the possession notice under Sec.13(4) was issued on 17.03.2023 which is also served on the applicants. All the applicants have put signature on the possession notice, possession notice is also affixed on the property and is also published in two newspapers as required under the Act.

¶42

4.4 The applicant’s contention that they were unaware of the SARFAESI measure is denied as the notices are duly served, and affixed on the property. The contention that the bank had charged exorbitant interest and penal interest is also denied as the interest charged is as per the terms of the loan agreement and all other charges are as per the sanction terms.

¶43

4.5 The respondent have followed all the statutory formalities and have obtained the order dated 31.05.2024. The Ld. CJM vide order dated 31.05.2024 has categorically mentioned all the facts of the case and the notices and appointed the advocate commissioner to take the possession of the property. Accordingly the advocate commissioner has issued the notice on 08.06.2024 intimating the applicant to vacate the premises on or before 17.06.2024.

¶44

4.6 The allegations regarding non registration of the central registry is unfounded and have produced the Transaction ID.200325368220 on 27.06.2021 where the charge is registered. The account was classified as NPA on 30.03.2021 and demand notice was issued on 28.06.2021 followed

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

by possession notice dated 17.03.2023 which is received by the applicants herein. The statutory notices including the service of notice, publication and affixture is all followed in compliance of the Act.

¶49

4.7 In spite of sufficient opportunity, the applicant did not liquated the liability, hence respondent issued the 1^st sale notice dated 21.09.2023 scheduling the property to auction on 27.10.2023, the sale notice is published in Tamil and English leading newspapers.

¶50

4.8 The applicant have obtained conditional order on 11.09.2024 wherein the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit 10% of the amount due on or before 13.09.2024 and equal sum should be deposited on or before 13.10.2024. However, the applicant failed to pay the second conditional order. Hence the stay granted by the Tribunal was automatically vacated. As the respondent have followed the measures as prescribed under the Act and Rules, prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶51

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

¶52

case

¶53

5.1 The applicants are the borrower and co-borrower who have filed the present SA challenging the Section 14 order dated 31.05.2024 passed by Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpet in Crl.M.P.No.1091/2024. It is discernible from the records, that the applicants availed a sum of Rs.63,50,000/- comprising of COPOD; facility of Rs.45 Lakhs on 11.12.2015; Home Loan of Rs.10 Lakhs and DLSEC facility of Rs.8.5 Lakhs on 09.10.2017 and mortgage of

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

the property as security towards the credit facility which is not disputed by the applicants here in.

¶58

5.2 Due to default in the repayment, the respondent bank has classified the loan accounts of the applicants as NPA on 30.03.2021 followed by the demand notice dated 28.06.2021 calling upon the borrowers, the guarantor and the mortgagor to repay the outstanding amount due in the three loan accounts within the period of 60 days. In the Demand Notice produced by the respondent bank at Page No.4, it clearly reflects the details of the borrower, mortgagor and guarantors, the nature of the loan facilities and description of the mortgaged property.

¶59

5.3 The first contention as raised is that the officer is not an Authorized officer to issue the statutory notices. As per S 2(a) of The Security Interest [Enforcement] Rules, 2002 SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 states, ““authorized officer” means an officer not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the secured creditor or any other person or authority exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the secured creditors, as the case may be, to exercise the rights of a secured creditor under the act.”

¶60

5.4 In the instant matter the statutory notices are issued by the authorized officer of the respondent bank who is authorized to initiate measures under the Act, hence the contention that the officer is not an authorized officer cannot sustain.

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

5.5 The Section 13(2) demand notice dated 28.06.2021 duly sent through RPAD which came to be unserved as per the returned covers produced at Page No.6 to 11 of respondent bank’s typed set, but the borrower M/s. Deepa Stores represented by Mr. K. Gurumurthy and Mrs. K. Jansi have duly signed on the Demand Notice as reflected in the Demand Notice produced at Page No.1 to 5 of respondent bank’s typed set. Thus it is established that s.13[2] demand notice is served on the borrower and guarantor and on the firm represented by K. Gurumurthy and the contention that demand notice is not served fails.

¶65

5.6 As applicants failed to repay the entire amount due nor made any representation after the receipt of the Demand Notice, the respondent bank proceeded under measures and issued Possession Notice dated 17.03.2023 under Section 13(4) which was duly signed and received by the applicant as per the acknowledgement produced at Page No.12 of respondent bank’s typed set. The Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.13 and 14 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶66

5.7 Further the Possession Notice dated 17.03.2023 was duly published in two Newspapers, one in “New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dinamani” (Tamil) dated 17.03.2023 as per the paper publication produced at Page No.15 and 16 of respondent bank’s typed set. Subsequently the respondent bank has issued Sale notice dated 21.09.2023 scheduling the sale to be held on 27.10.2023 which has been duly received by the applicant, properly affixed on the property, published

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

in two Newspapers. However, the sale has not taken place on 27.10.2023 for want of bidders.

¶71

5.8 The applicants challenge the S.14 order contending that the respondent has not complied with S.14[1][b] which requires the CMM/DM to take physical possession of the secured asset and its related documents after following the procedures in taking S.13 measures and then seeks the assistance of the Magistrate to physical secured the assets of the borrower. The respondent through its authorized officer has filed S.14 application along with the supporting documents for compliance of issuances of statutory notice along with the affidavit as required. The Ld. Magistrate on due consideration and examination of the documents has allowed S.14 application on 31.05.2024 appointing an advocate commissioner to take the physical possession and handover the secured asset to the secured creditor.

¶72

5.9 The 1^st respondent bank has issued 2^nd Sale notice dated 30.09.2024 scheduling the sale to be held on 29.10.2024 which has been challenged by the applicants in SA No.743 of 2024.

¶73

5.10 The main contention as raised by the applicants is that the respondent bank has initiated the measures without complying provisions in issuing the statutory notices is not sustainable, and the same is countered by the respondent bank by producing the Demand Notice dated 28.06.2021 at Page No.1 to 11 and Possession Notice dated 17.03.2023 at Page No.12 of their typed set. It is seen that the applicants have duly

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

acknowledged the statutory notices as per the signatures in statutory notices, wherein M/s. Deepa stores represented by Mr. K. Gurumurthy and Mrs. K. Jansi have acknowledged the statutory notices.

¶78

5.11 In fact, the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 17.03.2023 is affixed on the conspicuous part of the property as reflected in the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.13 and 14 of respondent bank’s typed set and also published in two Newspapers within seven days, one in “New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dinamani” (Tamil) both dated on 17.03.2023 which is evident from the paper publication produced at Page No. 15 and 16 of their typed set.

¶79

5.12 The another contention as raised by the applicants is that the respondent bank has not registered security interest in CERSAI, under Section 26D of the Act, also fails as the respondent bank has duly countered by producing the CERSAI report dated 24.10.2024 at Page No.38 to 41 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶80

5.13 Thus, it is evident that the Ld. Magistrate on examination of the pleadings in the S.14 application supported by the documents have passed an order dated 31.05.2024 directing the advocate commissioner to take the possession of the property. Though the applicant have filed the present SA impugning the Section 14 order dated 31.05.2024 passed by Ld. CJM, Chengalpat has not pointed out any illegality in the measures taken by the respondent herein.

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

5.14 On the other hand, though the statuary notices, the demand notice dated 28.06.2021 and possession notice dated 17.03.2023 is issued to the applicants and have voluntarily waived their right to raise any contentions with regard to Demand Notice and Possession notice within the period of 45 days. Hence the respondent bank as a secured creditor has duly complied all the measures as contemplated under the Acts and Rules made there under.

¶85

5.15 Now considering the challenge to Section 14 Order, it is appropriate to mention the declaration of The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments has held that the power of Designated Court under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, 2002 is ministerial and non- adjudicatory in nature and the process to be followed under Section 14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind.

¶86

5.16 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Others , held that

¶87

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.”

¶88

5.17 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

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

Section 14 and nothing more. The above Bombay High Court judgment has since been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶93

“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”.

¶94

5.18 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.

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

5.19 T hus, the Sec.14 order passed by the Ld. Section 14 order dated 31.05.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.1091/2024 passed by CJM, Chengalpat 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].

¶99

5.20 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. After classifying the loan account as NPA has issued Section 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 Section 13[2] Demand notice dated 28.06.2021 and Section 13[4] Possession notice dated 17.03.2023 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶100

5.21 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.

¶101

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

¶102

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 24^th day of November, 2025)

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶108

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Copy of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Doc. No.3051/2017 24.10.2017.	A-1
2.	Impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpat in C.M.P.No.1091/2024 31.05.2024.	A-2
3.	Notice of execution sent by the Advocate Commissioner (Original) 08.06.2024.	A-3

¶109

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶110

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	13(2) Demand notice with ack. Cards 28.06.2021.	R-1
2.	13(4) Possession notice 17.03.2023.	R-2
3.	Photo affixture 17.03.2023.	R-3
4.	Publication in New Indian Express (English) 17.03.2023.	R-4
5.	Publication in Dinamani (Tamil) 17.03.2023.	R-5
6.	Sale notice-1 with ack. Cards 21.09.2023.	R-6
7.	Photo affixture 21.09.2023.	R-7
8.	Publication in New Indian Express (English) 24.09.2023.	R-8
9.	Publication in Dinamani (Tamil) 24.09.2023.	R-9
10.	Sale notice-2 with ack. Cards 30.09.2024.	R-10
11.	Photo affixture 30.09.2024.	R-11
12.	Publication in New Indian Express (English) 10.10.2024.	R-12
13.	Publication in Dinamani (Tamil) 10.10.2024.	R-13
14.	CERSAI 24.10.2024.	R-14
15.	Statement of accounts.	R-15
16.	Order copy (SA 369/2024) 28.06.2024.	R-16
17.	Order copy (SA 743/2024) 25.10.2024.	R-17

¶111

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶112

All that part and parcel of the land and building belonging to K. Gurusamy situated at Kancheepuram District, Maduranthakam Registration Sub-District at No. 137, Madurantakam Town (Theradi Street) of Madurantakam Taluk within the limits of Madurantakam Municipality

SA No.369/2024

24.11.2025

In Old Survey No. 1028/11A-3193 sq. ft. (296.74 sq. mtrs.) –

¶117

Site measuring North to South 043 mtrs, on the eastern side 043 mtrs on the western side and East to West 6.8 mtrs on the northern side, 7.0 mtrs on the southern side-together with the residential and nonresidential buildings built therein-bearing Door No. 55, Drinking Well, Service connection No, 86 and security deposit with compound wall in the northern side- New T.S. No. 86, Block No. 47 and Ward A- within the following boundaries:

¶118

South of the site of Kanagavalli Ammal East of the site and house of Malarvizhi North of the Theradi Street

¶119

West of the site of Subash Kumar.

¶120

Sd/PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Ms Deepa Stores K. Gurusamy K Jansi v. Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Deepa Stores K. Gurusamy K Jansi v. Union Bank of India (Corporation 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

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S Sheeba Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus Abolfazl Nemati Pour

Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund versus S and S Industries and Enterprises Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Dharmapadam Sriram

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/S Bharath Kumar