Dismissed

M s Saibaba Ploymer Technologies Pvt. Limited Authoried signatory N G Naveen Kumar v. Uco Bank

DRT25 Jun 2025SA/374/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a company challenging possession measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court noted the applicant was the successor-in-interest to the mortgagor, had filed the appeal 1325 days late, and the underlying order had already been resolved by a deemed admission in High Court proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

M s Saibaba Ploymer Technologies Pvt. Limited Authoried… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

SA No.374/2025

25.06.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 374 of 2025

¶8

M/s. Saibaba Polymer Technologies Pvt Limited, Authorised Signatory Mr.N.G. Naveen Kumar, No.21, Nagalapuram Road, Uthukottai, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu -602 026. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorised Officer,

¶11

UCO Bank, Chennai Main Branch, 328, Thambu Chetty Street,

¶12

Chennai -600 001.

¶13

M/s. Sinduja Modern Dall and Rice Mills, Prop Mr. M.V. Sesha Rao, Shop No.T/F 111, Anna Fruit Whole Sale Market, Koyambedu, Chennai -600 092. ….Respondents

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Durairaj Counsel for respondent : M/s. V.P. Parivallal

¶16

ORDER ON SA 374/2025

¶17

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 25.11.2024 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].

SA No.374/2025

25.06.2025

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the under section 14 order dated 01.03.2021 in passed by Hon’ble District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruvallur K.Dis. No.12959/2018/M2 and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.5,05,23,859/-

¶23

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶24

The 2^nd respondent is the owner of the land and building described in the application and the applicant entered into Lease Agreement on 01.04.2021 by paying a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- plus monthly maintenance of Rs.20,00,000/- Manufacturing and Marketing of Diesel Exhaust fluid (DEF) purpose. Since the applicant is being in the property.

¶25

The 1^st respondent obtained order dated 01.03.2021 passed by Hon’ble District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruvallur K.Dis.No.12959/2018/M2 for taking physical possession of the secured asset from the second respondent, towards the default of business loan obtained from the 1^st respondent bank.

¶26

The applicants submit that they are 3^rd parties/statutory tenants and continuously residing in the premises and now the 1^st respondent is attempting to throw away the applicants who is running factory with the livelihood of 35 persons are working in premises.

¶27

The 1^st respondent without issuing notice to the applicant and without due process of law is attempting to take physical possession of the property from the applicant. The respondents cannot be dispossessed or evicted

SA No.374/2025

25.06.2025

taking advantage under the sec.14 order. Since the same is obtained by the first respondent by suppression of facts.

¶32

It is contented that they are in actual possession of the subject property besides the statutory tenant and that the tenancy came to be in existence even prior to creation of security interest. Applicant apprehends that they may be dispossessed. Hence the file the present SA agreed by the sec.14 order.

¶33

The respondent bank has come on record and as filed the detailed counter contenting that the applicant is not a Bonafide legal entity and have approached this Tribunal with unclean hands.

¶34

The applicant does not file the board resolution in favor of the authorized Signatory Mr. N.G. Naveen Kumar and from the affidavit, it is seen that he has filed for himself on behalf of the applicant. The applicant in hand and glove with the borrower has filed the present SA which is barred by limitation.

¶35

The borrower had challenged the sec.14 order passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector of Thiruvallur, dated 01.03.2021 in TSA No.67/2023 which came to be dismissed by this Tribunal.

¶36

The applicants claiming to be Lessee/Tenants for 2021 only and also claims to be tenants even before creation of mortgage. The applicant has filed the sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 19.04.2017 which clearly inferred that the applicant is well aware of the SARFAESI proceedings righty from the issuance of the sec.13(2) demand notice.

SA No.374/2025

25.06.2025

In the demand notice it is categorically mentioned that the mortgage has been created on schedule property by the borrower by deposit of title deeds. As per S.13 the borrower had not taken any permission for the lease and therefore the Tribunal cannot grant the prayer of the tenancy.

¶41

It is case of the bank that the 2^nd respondent is borrower and the mortgagor had availed (Cash Credit and Term Loan) to the tune of Rs.250 Lakhs which was enhanced to the tune of Rs.529.50 Lakhs and created the mortgage of the factory premises consists of land and building, with found which is the secured assert and had confirming the deposit of the title deeds.

¶42

Inspite of restructuring of the loan facilities, the borrower did not repay the dues as per the terms and conditions of the sanction, hence the Loan account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2017,which was followed by issuance of Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 19.04.2017 calling upon the borrower to repay the sum of Rs.5,05,23,859/-.

¶43

The applicant the borrowers and the guarantors did not file any objections. Hence, the bank have issued the 13(4) possession notice dated 06.09.2017. The notice is published in the newspapers and affixed on the property for the bank has filed sec.14 to take the physical possession of the property, which came to be allowed. The Sec.14 application was not taken up for consideration the bank approached this Hon’ble high Court seeking for a direction in WP.No.7856/19 which came to be allowed granting six weeks to consider the Sec.14 Petition.

SA No.374/2025

25.06.2025

Subsequently, bank also filed the Contempt Petition No.286/2021 for wilful disobedience and filed the contempt petition. The District Magistrate allowed the application on 01.03.2021 and recording the same, the contempt petition was closed.

¶48

The 2^nd respondent/Borrower filed the SA.No.84/2021 on the file of DRT-II, Challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated 01.03.2021 and obtained order of Status Quo. Subsequently, was transferred from DRT-III and renumbered as TSA.No.67/2023 which was dismissed on merits on 13.03.2024.

¶49

Subsequent to dismissal as there was delay in taking the possession the bank approach the District Collector, again the Deputy Thasildhar based on the order of the District Collector issued Notice Dated 15.11.2024 to the Borrower for handing over the possession within 7 days, which is challenged the present SA to set aside the measure and bank took all efforts to bring the property for sale. However, the bank applicant as also challenged the sale in TSA.518/2023 which came to be dismissed on 13.03.2024.

¶50

The Plant and Machineries which were hypothecated with bank valued at Rs. 1.65 Crores are not found in the factory as on date and the applicant being the 3^rd party is only trespasser is liable to be evicted.

¶51

The applicant is the 3^rd party calming to be tenant on the secured assert as per the lease agreement dated 01.04.2021 entered with the M/s. M.V. Sesha Rao for the Plot No.5/185, Garden Road, “B” Shanthi Colony, Alamathi Chennai, Thiruvallur (TamilNadu) 600 052 for a period of 6 years.

SA No.374/2025

25.06.2025

It seen from the schedule of Property All that the shed, with build-up Area 12,500 Square Feet, Unit Located at S.F. No.272/1& 2, Plot No.5/185, Garden Road, “B” Shanthi Colony, is not same property which is mentioned/described in the sec.14 order.

¶56

It seen from the sec.14 Order the property has described is Alamathi Village, Ponneri Taluk, Survey Number 274/1, 274/2 and extent Land in S.No.274/1 and extent of 1 acre and in S.No.274/2 an extent of 0.91 acre (Old patta No.132, then patta No.849, New patta No.1402) total 1.91 acres together with Godown –an extent of 12500 sq.ft., and office room-an extent of 210 sq.ft.,

¶57

North	: Survey No.278/2
South	: Survey No.272
East	: Survey No.285
West	: Survey No.277 & 275
23. He	nce the contention that the applicant is a tenant on the secured
asset can	not sustain, firstly the tenancy is for a period for 6 years is on
unregiste	red lease agreement which is not a valid tenancy and secondly
the appli	cant has challenged the sec.14 order dated 15.11.2024 there is
delay of	1325 days in preferring the appeal.

¶58

The respondent bank has filed the memo submitting that the applicant based on the unregistered lease agreement and have obtained status Quo on 09.12.2024 and challenging the said interim order, this Respondent filed MA.7/2025 before DRAT Chennai which was allowed and consequently the aforesaid interim order was set aside. Aggrieved by the order of DRAT the applicant preferred WP.No.6226/25 which came to be

SA No.374/2025

25.06.2025

granted liberty for the applicant herein to continue their possession for godown-2 till June 2025 and directed them to pay Rs.2.50 Lakhs for the use and occupation of the premises.

¶63

It is therefore prayed that based on the order dated 26.02.2025 passed in WP/6226/25 the applicant herein as to vacate the premises on end of June 2025. Hence, nothing survive for the adjudication.

¶64

Even the otherwise the applicant has not made out the case to condole the delay of 1325 days, and without any application to condone the present SA is only to be dismissed. Therefore nothing survives for any adjudication as per the undertaking given by the applicant in the WP/6226/25, which has to be complied by the applicant herein.

¶65

For the foregoing reasons, the present SA fails and accordingly SA stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending

¶66

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

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

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

¶69

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 25^th day of June, 2025)

¶70

ANNEXURES

¶71

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶72

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Lease Deed dated 01.04.2021.	A-1

SA No.374/2025

25.06.2025

2.	Impugned Order dated 01.03.2021.	A-2
3.	District Collector dated 15.11.2024.	A-3
4.	Demand Notice dated 19.04.2017.	A-4

¶77

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶78

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Equitable mortgage in favour of Bank, Doc.No.12301/2013 dated 24.10.2013.	R-1
2.	Supplementary Equitable mortgage in favour of Bank, Doc.No.11715/2015 dated 09.12.2015.	R-2
3.	13(4) Notice dated 19.04.2017.	R-3
4.	13(4) Possession Notice dated 06.09.2017	R-4
5.	Possession Notice affixture photos.	R-5
6.	Possession Notice published in newspaper- English-“The New Indian Express” Possession Notice published in paper–Tamil– “Dhinamai”.	R-6
7.	Order passed in WP.7865/2019 dated 18.03.2019.	R-7
8.	Order passed in Contempt Petition No.286/2021 dated 15.03.2021.	R-8

¶79

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶80

All that the shed with build-up Areas 12,500 Sq.ft unit Located at S.F. No.274/1 & 2, Plot No.5/185, Garden Road, “B” Shanthi Colony, Alamathi Chennai, Thiruvallur (Tamil Nadu) 600 052. Mentioned in the Lease Agreement.

¶81

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

M s Saibaba Ploymer Technologies Pvt. Limited Authoried signatory N G Naveen Kumar v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M s Saibaba Ploymer Technologies Pvt. Limited Authoried signatory N G Naveen Kumar v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Bannari Amman Enterprises and Another

Indian Overseas Bank versus Vignesh Structurals and Another

C S Ajith versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Solomon Jachin Finney G

Bank of Baroda versus vadim infrastructure private limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s. Aakash Constructions