Dismissed

Mr S Dhanraj S Varadarajan Srinivasan Punithavel v. Yes Bank

DRT27 Nov 2025SA/379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, dismissed an appeal challenging an order granting possession of secured assets under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that Section 14 confers ministerial, non-adjudicatory powers on the Magistrate, requiring no scrutiny of debt disputes, which are reserved for Section 17 proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Section 14 order of possession granted to the bank was upheld. All pending interim applications were disposed of.

Mr S Dhanraj S Varadarajan Srinivasan Punithavel versus… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 379 of 2024

¶8

Mr. S. Dhanraj, No.11/1. Kandhan Street, Perambur, Chennai -600 011.

¶9

Mr. S. Varadarajan,

¶10

No.11/3. Kandhan Street, Perambur,

¶11

Chennai -600 011.

¶12

Mr. Srinivasan Punithavel, No.11/2. Kandhan Street, Perambur, Chennai -600 011. ….Applicants -Vs-

¶13

The Authorized Officer, M/s. Yes Bank Ltd., Kosimo One, Tower-C, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.14, 3^rd Main Road,

¶14

Ambattur, Chennai -600 050. ….Respondent

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. M. Gunasekaran Counsel for respondent : M/s. TKM Sai Krishnan

¶17

ORDER ON SA 379/2024

¶18

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 26.06.2024 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].

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

The applicant has challenged the S.14 order dated 18.07.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.11807 of 2022 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.69,94,310/-

¶23

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶24

3.1 The applicants are the borrowers who had availed loan for an amount of Rs.1,00,20,000/- from M/s. Yes Bank Ltd in the year 2017. The applicants submits that the borrowers were making remittance promptly to the loan as contemplated under loan agreement on due date without any delay and default maintained the loan account within limits.

¶25

3.2 It is submitted that the applicants secured the loan and created E.M. in respect of the schedule mentioned property and had also executed necessary security documents in favour of the respondent. The borrower never allowed their loan account to become NPA by remitting the payments well in advance and there was no default for the statutory period so as to classify the loan account as NPA, as per Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act, it is mandatory on part of the respondent to classify the loan account as NPA in accordance with the RBI guidelines

¶26

3.3 It is further submitted that the borrowers business was seriously affected for allied reasons and then the loan account become unpaid for some dues. Despite Pandemic situation the applicants were regularly paying the dues. The applicant as of today had paid nearly Rs.77 lakhs to the respondent. It is contended that the applicants were also made to sign

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

many blank papers contents of which are not known to the applicants and the same are not binding on the applicants.

¶31

3.4 The schedule mentioned property is the primary security with regard to the loan availed by the applicants and the respondent does not have any authority to enforce their security interest in over the schedule mentioned property.

¶32

3.5 The respondent claimed in their petition they have issued Demand Notice and Possession Notice, but both notices were not properly served to applicants and Possession Notice not has been published in leading newspapers,

¶33

3.6 The applicants met the respondent on 27.01.2022 and vide letter dated 27.01.2022 requested for OTS for an amount of Rs.48,00,000/-which the respondent has not considered, but in hurried manner issued the impugned Possession Notice dated 08.03.2022 claiming that they have issued Demand Notice to all parties, but is not received on the all Parties/Applicants.

¶34

3.7 The applicant submits that challenging the Possession Notice, Applicants filed SA.177 of 2022 before this Tribunal and obtained interim order and complied the same. Subsequently the applicants gave OTS for their loan, which the respondent declined and SA came to be dismissed, against which the applicants filed Appeal in AIR No.871 of 2023 before Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai.

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

3.8 The respondent had used back door method to evict the lawful Possession of the property from the applicants through the order Hon’ble CMM at Chennai. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice on 21.06.2024 to the applicants to vacate the premises and the applicants had approached the Hon’ble CMM at Egmore Chennai.

¶39

3.9 It is specific case of the applicant that without serving the Demand Notice and Possession Notice and without compliance of the statutory requirements, the respondent ought not to have invoked the under sec.14 of the Act and respondent has not affirmed Point No(ix) of S.14 of SARFAESI Act in affidavit being filed by the Authorized Officer of the secured creditor that all the sections of the Act, are mandatorily complied before District Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

¶40

3.10 It is contented that without giving a reasonable opportunity to clear the loan dues, the bank had hurriedly taken steps to proceed against the secured asset. The CMM is only empowered to take physical possession of the property after taking inventory if necessary with the assistance of the police. The order has been misused by the respondent without the knowledge of the CMM.

¶41

3.11 In the grounds, it is contended that the order of the Ld. Magistrate is contrary to law and if allowed to stand would cause irreparable loss and injury to the applicants. The Ld. Magistrate has proceeded to pass the order under challenge almost mechanically and has failed to advert to the Mandatory Statutory requirements which ought to have been adopted by

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

the respondent before initiating measures under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Ld. Magistrate has passed the order under challenge without foreseeing the consequent.

¶46

3.12 The respondent has not followed the provisions of the Act and Rules in taking measures in respect of the secured asset and there has been no default in the account except for the inaction of the bank and payments have been made as directed by the bank. The Ld. Magistrate has failed to explain that the respondent would not fall within the definition of the term Secured Creditor as per Section 2 (1) (zd) (i) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶47

3.13 The measures adopted by the respondent in haste are contrary to RBI Guidelines. The Ld. Magistrate ought to have seen that the entire proceedings is contrary to provisions of the Sec.13 of the Act, it is reiterated that the respondent has not issued the Possession Notice as per Sec.13(4) of the Act and upheld the validity of the measures initiated by the respondent. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble CMM, Egmore Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.11807 of 2022 dated 18.07.2023.

¶48

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶49

4.1 The respondent bank has filed the counter contending that the applicants had approached the respondent bank and requested to grant financial assistance for a sum of Rs.1,00,20,000/-. The respondent bank after considering the documents produced by the applicants agreed to sanction the financial assistance with respect to the terms and conditions

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

of the loan agreement. The sanction letter dated 26.07.2017 was received and acknowledged by the applicants.

¶54

4.2 The applicants after reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, expressly executed the documents under loan A/c.No.010388900000142. The applicants had unequivocally admitted that the Title Deeds of Schedule Mentioned Property has been deposited with the respondent bank for the purpose of creating equitable mortgage by Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Doc. No.3836 of 2017 was executed by the applicants in favor of respondent bank and the same was registered at SRO, Purasawalkam, which is not disputed by the applicants in the present SA.

¶55

4.3 The applicant had failed to repay the loan amount due to the respondent bank in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Therefore the applicants cannot approbate and reprobate with respect to the nonpayment of the monthly installments.

¶56

4.4 Since, the applicants had committed default in repayment of monthly instalments on schedule dates, the bank after following the guidelines of the RBI classified the loan account as NPA as defined in Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶57

4.5 It is submitted that the respondent bank had never obtained signature on a blank paper form the applicants and the respondent bank had/will never indulge in any such unethical practices. Since, the

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

respondent bank had followed the due procedure in law are entitled to enforce the secured interest.

¶62

4.6 The respondent bank issued the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 03.12.2021 of the SARFAESI Act to the applicants calling upon them to discharge their legitimate liability for a sum of Rs.69,94,310/- as on 02.12.2021. The Demand Notice dated 03.12.2021 was delivered to the applicants on 08.12.2021 and thus respondent bank has completed the service of the Demand Notice dated 03.12.2021, as contemplated under Rule 3(1) and 3(4) of the SI Rules. The respondent bank had affixed the Demand Notice dated 03.12.2021 and delivery proof in the typeset of documents.

¶63

4.7 The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice was duly served to the applicants. In spite of receipt of the demand notice, the applicants failed to repay the total outstanding amount as demanded in the Demand Notice. The applicant neither made nay representation/objection nor settled the total outstanding amount in accordance with the Demand Notice within 60 days from the date of issue of demand notice.

¶64

4.8 As the applicant failed to repay the total outstanding amount of Rs.69,94,310/- as demanded in notice dated 03.12.2021, the respondent bank had issued Possession Notice dated 08.03.2022 under Section 13(4) of the Act, to the applicants. The Possession Notice was dispatched on 09.03.2022 and the same was duly served to the applicants on 10.03.2022 and the same was affixed on the outer door of the Schedule mentioned

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

Property on 08.03.2022. The Possession Notice was published in two leading newspapers one in Vernacular Language Tamil Newspaper and other in English Newspaper dated 10.03.2022 within 7 days from the date of Possession Notice.

¶69

4.9 The respondent bank had followed all the procedures as contemplated under Rule 8(1) & (2) SI Rules. It is pertinent to note that the Possession Notice service proof, affixture, and paper publication are annexed in the typed set of document filed by the respondent bank.

¶70

4.10 The applicants had approached the respondent bank vide a letter requested for OTS for an amount of Rs.48,00,000/- as against the outstanding amount mentioned in the Demand Notice dated 03.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.69,94,310/-. The applicant’s offer for settlement is Rs.48 lakhs as OTS is ambiguous and irrational.

¶71

4.11 It is pertinent to note that the bank is always open for an amicable settlement, provided the proposal for settlement is within the frame work of the banking and business parlance. Further, the applicants filed SA.177 of 2022 challenging the Possession Notice dated 08.03.2022 before the DRT-III, however, the said SA was dismissed by making an observation that, “As the applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the Respondent Bank while initiating action under the Act, this SA is liable to be dismissed”.

¶72

4.12 Subsequent to the issuance of Sec.13(2) Demand Notice and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice, the respondent bank had approached the

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

Hon’ble CMM, Egmore by filling an application along with necessitated documents under Sec.14 of the SARFAESI Act. After the perusal of documents the Hon’ble Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take Physical Possession of the Schedule Mentioned Property vide order dated 18.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.11807 of 2022.

¶77

4.13 It is contended that the borrowers need not be put on notice by the Court before passing the order U/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act as the order is only a ministerial order and not a judicial order, the Advocate Commissioner had issued notice and the applicants have accepted the fact in Para V (11) of the present SA that the advocate commissioner had issued notice to vacate the premises. Despite the knowledge of Advocate Commissioner’s notice, the applicants continued to be in Possession in the schedule mentioned property.

¶78

4.14 Further, the applicant has presented a fabricated tale claiming that the respondent tried to throw out the applicants from the premises, however, the respondent had never indulged in such unethical practices. In fact more time was given to the applicants to repay the legitimate due repayable by the bank within 10 days from the date of attempting execution or the order. Therefore the respondent bank had meticulous followed the procedure prescribed under law.

¶79

4.15 The respondent bank had issued the Demand Notice with particulars prescribed under the rules and regulations. Therefore it is critical to emphasize that the Hon’ble CMM, Egmore had passed orders dated

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

18.07.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.11807 of 2022 on perusal of the documents filed by the respondent.

¶84

4.16 It is pertinent to note that the respondent has given proper credit to the applicant’s loan account on payment made by the applicants. Further, the respondent has mentioned the total outstanding amount in the Section 14 application filed before the Hon’ble CMM, Egmore, passed by the Hon’ble CMM, Egmore is a ministerial order and hence, the Hon’ble CMM does not have any jurisdiction to determine the debts due by the applicants while passing the order U/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶85

4.17 The respondent had circumspectly followed all the provision of the SARFAESI Act and only after the perusal of the documents furnished by the respondent, the Hon’ble CMM, Egmore had passed orders dated 18.07.2023. Therefore the proviso of Section 14(1) was also contemplated by the respondent on filing the Sec.14 application before the Hon’ble CMM, Egmore.

¶86

4.18 It seen that the duty of the applicants to get express consent from the respondent to lease the schedule mentioned property which has been mortgaged in favour of the respondent. The applicants had let the schedule mentioned property for lease without the express consent of the respondent bank then such occupant of the property cannot be considered as a lawful occupant. Further it is absolutely crystal clear that there was no existing registered rental agreement prior to the mortgage of the schedule mentioned property in favour of the respondent.

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

4.19 Moreover, when the applicants challenged the possession notice dated 08.03.2022 in SA.177 of 2022 there was no whisper about any tenants/ occupants, in the SA. The order U/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act is only a ministerial order and not a judicial order, hence the borrower need not be put on notice by the Hon’ble CMM court.

¶91

4.20 The respondent bank had adhered to the mandatory statutory provisions under law and filed necessitated documents under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before Hon’ble CMM, Egmore, on perusal of the documents furnished the Hon’ble court had order dated 18.07.2023.

¶92

4.21 It seen that the respondent bank is entitled invoke measures under the SARFAESI Act, the applicants had committed default in repayment of monthly instalments on schedule dates, the respondent bank after following the guidelines of the RBI and also classified the loan account as NPA and defined in Sec.2(o) of the SARFAESI Act, on 29.06.2021.

¶93

4.22 The applicants to prove they are bonafides ought to have paid the entire outstanding as specified in the Demand Notice dated 02.12.2021, the respondent bank had followed the procedure of law as contemplated under Rule 3(1), 3(4), Rule 8(1) and (2) of the SIE Rules. Despite giving long opportunity to repay the total outstanding, the applicants failed repay.

¶94

4.23 It is an admitted fact that the applicant have created an equitable mortgage and over the schedule mentioned property for the loan availed, however the applicants have questioned the right of the respondent to enforce the secured interest.

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

4.24 It is pertinent that the respondents have all the right to enforce the secured assets over the schedule mentioned property in accordance with law as same is supported with valid loan documents and MODT. Further, the respondent bank had served, affixed and published the Possession Notice dated 08.03.2022. The respondent bank had followed all the procedures as contemplated under Rule 8(1) & (2) SI Rules.

¶99

4.25 It is submitted that the applicant with malafide intention had filed the present SA and misled the Hon’ble Tribunal and obtained an order dated 01.07.2024. The applicants failed to comply the orders within the time specified in the order dated 01.07.2024. Eventually due to noncompliance, the stay was vacated automatically.

¶100

4.26 The applicants had filed a false affidavit before this Hon’ble Tribunal stating false accusations on the respondent with an intention to mislead this Hon’ble Tribunal. The Hon’ble Madras High Court by order dated 11.10.2017 in WA.No.367 of 2017 in M. Lilly Vs. District Collector had categorically decided that the parties files an affidavit to mislead the courts are not entitled for any relief claimed by them. In the present case the applicants had lied and filed an affidavit with a wilful intention to mislead this Hon’ble Tribunal for their wrongful gain and hence they are not entitled for any relief claimed by them. Hence the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶101

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of

the case

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

5.1 The applicant are the borrowers who had availed a mortgage loan of Rs.1,00,20,000/- from M/s. Yes Bank Ltd., vide sanction letter dated 26.07.2017. The applicant does not dispute the creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds which is registered as Doc.No.3836/2017 in the officer of the Sub Registrar Purasawalkam. In fact the applicant does not dispute the availing of the facility and the mortgage of the property including the default in the repayment. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 29.06.2021 as per S2[o] of the Act as per RBI guidelines.

¶107

5.2 The respondent have issued the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 03.12.2021 claiming an amount of Rs.69,94,310/- due as on 02.12.2021 along with other charges. The applicant have received the Demand Notice as per the Postal Track Record (Proof of delivery) which is produced at Pg.16-18 of counter & documents. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) Demand Notice, as the Borrower and Co-Borrower and the Guarantor did not liquated the liability, the respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 08.03.2022 which was duly served, Acknowledgement Cards are produced at Pg.21-24 of counter, and affixture of Possession Notice produced at Pg.25 evidences due service of Possession Notice. Further Possession Notice is also published in two newspapers one in Vernacular Language Tamil and another one in English both dated 08.03.2022.

¶108

5.3 It is an admitted fact that applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 08.03.2022 under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

Act in SA No.177/2022 before this Tribunal which came to be dismissed holding that the applicant failed to point out any infirmities in the procedures adopted by the respondent bank. Hence the contention that there is no proper service of possession notice cannot sustain and the challenge to possession notice is already adjudicated in the SA 177/2022.

¶113

5.4 However the respondent has produced the copies of the S.13(2) Demand Notice and S.13(4) Possession Notice and its acknowledgement cards for due compliance of the measures taken. As the applicants failed to repay the entire outstanding amount the bank has proceeded and approached the CMM, Egmore Chennai in u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon’ble CMM after perusal of the application and the loan documents produced by the respondent bank allowed the S.14 application on 18.07.2023.

¶114

5.5 The Ld. Magistrate after due verification of the documents and the pleadings in Sec.14 application companied with affidavit of the secured creditor have allowed the S.14 petition directing the Advocate Mr. V. Saravanan, as the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the schedule mentioned property after taking inventory if necessary with the assistance of the Station House Officer, G-1 Veppery Police Station and to handover the same to the secured creditor.

¶115

5.6 Yet another contention raised that the respondent is not authorized to take measure under the Act is countered by the bank on production of Board’s approval authoring the officer to act as secured creditor. The copy

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

of the approval of the Board dated 22.10.2021 is produced at page 29 of the counter.

¶120

5.7 Thus it is evident that the Ld. Magistrate on examination of the pleadings in the S.14 application which is supported by the documents, have passed an order dated 18.07.2023 directing the Advocate Commissioner to take the possession of the property. Though the applicant have filed the present SA impugning the Sec.14 order dated 18.07.2023 passed by Ld. CMM, Egmore Chennai has not pointed out any illegality in the measures taken by the respondent herein.

¶121

5.8 On the other hand, the statutory notices, the Demand Notice dated 03.12.2021 and Possession Notice dated 08.03.2022 are issued to the applicants are in accordance with the Act and Rules made therunder.

¶122

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 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

¶123

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

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between secured creditor and debtor.”

¶128

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

¶129

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

¶130

“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”.

¶131

5.12 Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act statuses that no action taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (or

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

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.

¶136

5.13 T hus, the Sec.14 order passed by the Ld. Section 14 order dated 18.07.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.11807/2022 passed by CMM, Egmore Chennai 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].

¶137

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.

¶138

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 03.12.2021 d and S.13[4] Possession Notice dated 08.03.2022 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

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.

¶143

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

¶144

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 27^th day of November, 2025)

¶145

ANNEXURES

¶146

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶147

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner dated 21.06.2024.	A-1
2.	Copy of Impugned order Passed by Hon’ble CMM in Crl.M.P.No.11807 of 2022 dated 18.07.2023.	A-2

¶148

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶149

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Demand Notice issued U/s.13(2) of SARFAESI Act along with Dispatch proof and Service Proof dated 03.12.2021.	R-1
2.	Possession Notice issued U/s.13(4) of SARFAESI Act along with Dispatch proof, Service Proof, Affixture and Paper Publication dated 08.03.2022.	R-2
3.	Copy of the approval of the Board as Authorized Officer dated 22.10.2021.	R-3

¶150

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶151

All that Piece and parcel of property being Land measuring an extent of 2560 Sq.ft., together with a building thereon, Comprised in Resurvey

SA No.379/2024

27.11.2025

Nos.2854 and 2853, in Bricklin Road, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai, situated at Purasaiwalkam Village, Purasaiwalkam Perambur Taluk, Chennai District, and Bounded on the

¶156

North by : Vendor’s Land South by : Vendor’s Land Sold to Murugesa Naicker, East by : Vendor’s Land West by : Bricklin Road,

¶157

Situated within the Registration District of Chennai Central and Sub Registration District of Purasaiwalkam.

¶158

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

Mr S Dhanraj S Varadarajan Srinivasan Punithavel v. Yes Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr S Dhanraj S Varadarajan Srinivasan Punithavel v. Yes 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Premalatha

State Bank of India versus T K Sunil Mithran and Ors.

M Balamurugan versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M s J S Traders and two others

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Sree Laxmi

State Bank of India versus Biragalathan