Dismissed

Ms Lifestyle Housing Systems Represented by its proprietrix Mrs M Subbulakshmi v. Punjab National Bank

DRT6 Oct 2025SA/401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged Section 14 order and subsequent SARFAESI measures by bank regarding non-payment of loan. Court held Section 14 order non-adjudicatory and final under Section 14(3), barred from being challenged in Tribunal. Application dismissed as property already auctioned and sold with third party interest created, making matter infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Present Securitization Application dismissed as infructuous and barred by limitation/waiver; interim orders vacated.

Ms Lifestyle Housing Systems Represented by its proprietrix… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 06^th day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 401 of 2024

¶8

M/s Lifestyle Housing Systems

¶9

Rep. by its Proprietrix,

¶10

Mrs. M. Subbulakshmi

¶11

No.5, M.G.R. Street, Cholavaram Nagar Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044

¶12

Mrs. M. Subbulakhsmi

¶13

W/o Mr. K. Muthuram No.5, M.G.R. Street, Cholavaram Nagar Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044

¶14

Mr. K. Muthuram

¶15

S/o Mr. Kechaia

¶16

No.5, M.G.R. Street, Cholavaram Nagar Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044 ….Applicants

¶17

-Vs-

¶18

The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank Circle Sastra Centre, Chennai South No.769, 2^nd Floor, Spencer Plaza Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002 ….Respondent

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. Murugan Counsel for respondent : Sh. S. Vaidyanathan

¶21

ORDER ON SA 401/2024

¶22

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

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶27

The applicant has filed present SA challenging the Section 14 order dated 17.05.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in C.M.P. No.6634 of 2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Section 14 order is Rs.2,68,47,039.86p.

¶28

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶29

3.1 The applicant is the borrower and partnership firm represented by Mrs. M. Subulakshmi, the 2^nd applicant here in. The applicant had availed a loan of Rs.80,00,000/- on 14.08.2012 under the Credit Guarantee Fund (CGTMSE Scheme backed by the government of India). There was a burglary in the factory for the period of 04.02.2013 to 03.02.2014 which was intimated to the Respondent bank to claim the insurance money which the bank failed to do so which is in violation of Code 2.1.1.d of Bank’s Commitment to Micro and Small Enterprises August, 2012 of Banking Codes and Standards Board of India (hereafter as BCSBI)

¶30

3.2 Further the burglary claim came to be rejected on 11.02.2014 due to bank’s mistake and the bank also did not compensated the financial loss of Rs.35,74,122/- as per the Bankers’ Code of Commitment. It is contended that the applicant suffered financial loss due to burglary and the compliant was lodged on with the R-11, Royala Nagar, Police Station at Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089 claiming a worth of Rs.35,74,000/-.

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

Further the applicant had made periodic payments and though shifted the factory to Valudhalambedu, Chennai – 600 044 in October 2013 on assurance of the bank to assist in bridge the loss

¶35

3.3 Further the account has been slipped into NPA, as the respondent dishonored their promises. The applicant secured work orders from M/s S P Roy (Furniture King) Shillong, Meghalaya State for Rs.28,00,000/- & letter of intent for Rs.200.00 lakhs and from M/s New Buxar Furniture house, Bihar State orders for Rs.53,72,000/- & letter of intent of Rs.175.00 lakhs having such orders for Rs.82.01 lakhs & letter of intent for Rs.375 lakhs, as per the order. The 2^nd applicant requested a financial assistance of Rs.20,00,000/- which was promised by the bank and forced the 2^nd applicant to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- to process financial assistance.

¶36

3.4 The Respondent bank have not sanctioned the time bound adequate financial assistance to the applicant as per their own circular and also there was a stock of Rs.68,07,025/- bills receivables Rs.17,15,800/- to reach the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- as drawing power, hence the applicants submits proposal on 30.12.2023 for restructuring of credit limits which the Respondent bank have not sanctioned. The Respondent bank as shown the Cash Credit Facility under CGTMSE was restructured as T.A.No.794 of 2023 which is false and in spite of applicant making payment, paid charges and guarantee fee to CGTMSE on 16.11.2012 fulfilling the conditions of the circular.

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

3.5 The Respondent bank have failed to perform the preventive measures in accordance with the RBI directions and have classified the account as NPA followed by the issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 28.04.2015 read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, demanding a sum of Rs.1,09,35,710/- and also issued the Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 25.08.2015. It is contended that the action of the bank is barred by limitation as it is extinguished on 14.08.2015 which is barred by Section 36 of the Act.

¶41

3.6 The Respondent bank had threatened the applicants to take the measures and to close the unit permanently evidencing the notice under Section 13(4). The Respondent bank fabricated the date of deposit of original title deeds as on 06.12.2016 and also on 11.12.2015 as seen in the TA 794 of 2023. The Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds is evidencing the real intention and the purpose of Deposit of Title Deeds clearly reflects that the bank have played fraud. The bank in the disguise of sanction of revival package, influenced to register in valid MOTD dated 16.12.2015 for a time barred cash credit and the bank does not have subsiding security interest to enforce the property for the reason, 3^rd applicant created mortgage for the money borrowed by the 1^st applicant.

¶42

3.7 The applicant also submits that the MOTD is not subsiding, further it is contended that the bank should proceed only when the account is restructured and in fact granted further loans to the borrower, the bank has classified the account of the Housing Loan and Over Draft Facility of

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

the 3^rd applicant on 29.05.2016 which is not in accordance with Section 13(2), 2(1)(o) of the Act. The Cash Credit Account of the 1^st applicant was classified as NPA on 30.07.2016 which is already classified as NPA on 31.03.2015 and demanding an amount of Rs.86,61,687/-

¶47

3.8 The Respondent bank had issued an Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 21.11.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.1,38,09,297/- which is issued after clubbing the amounts of all three accounts Cash Credit, Housing Loan, Over Draft Facility which is in valid. Though the applicant have again produced work order details, bank in violation have filed an OA No.544 of 2018 dated 07.08.2018 and OA No.860 of 2018 dated 12.11.2018 with false, frivolous, fabricated documents.

¶48

3.9 The bank have classified the Cash Credit Loan account as NPA on 31.03.2015 and issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 28.04.2015 and again classified as NPA on 30.07.2016 and further had issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 21.11.2016. The loan accounts of the 3^rd applicant Housing Loan and Over Draft facility as NPA on 29.05.2016 and issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 21.11.2016 and classified as NPA on 14.07.2016 and filed OA 860 of 2018

¶49

3.10 The Respondent bank have ignored the PNB MSME Policy and CGTMSE scheme and have initiated the measures under the SARFAESI Act. The bank have issued Sale notice dated 26.05.2022 and 19.07.2022. The 2^nd Sale notice dated 19.07.2022 was challenged in SA No.421 of 2022 in DRT-II which is re numbered as TSA No.411 of 2023 in DRT-III

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

3.11 The Respondent bank have issued further Sale notice dated 24.08.2022 and 21.10.2022 without serving the Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 16.08.2018, additionally bank have produced fresh Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.01.2023 for the 3^rd time stating that the Cash Credit account of 1^st applicant was classified as NPA on 30.07.2016 and the loan accounts of 3^rd applicant were classified as NPA on 29.05.2016. Further the bank have issued Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 16.03.2023

¶54

3.12 The Respondent bank have failed to comply with mandated Section 13(3A) of the Act and filed Section 14 application before the Hon’ble CJM Chengalpattu on 16.06.2023 which is numbered as 6116 of 2023 and registered as Doc.No.6634 of 2023. The bank have not considered and replied under Section 13(3A) under representation letter dated 16.03.2023 which is sent against the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.01.2023 without completing 60 days, bank have issued Section 13(4) Possession notice and it is duly received on 20.03.2023

¶55

3.13 Further the TSA No.411 of 2023 came to be allowed on 20.06.2023 as the Respondent bank has intended to withdraw the SARFAESI actions, the Section 13(2) Demand Notice itself withdrawn and the all the measures will automatically collapse. Further the bank have issued Sale notices dated 10.07.2023, 18.08.2023, 30.09.2023, 02.12.2023. The present SA is filed challenging the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 and the sale held on 20.02.2024 is null and void and prays to

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

declare the classification of the account as NPA is void in contrary to the RBI circular and CGTMSE scheme.

¶60

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶61

4.1 It is submitted that the respondent bank had sanctioned the Credit facility of Rs.80.00 lakhs as requested by the applicants and the sanction letter dated 14.08.2012 was acknowledged by the applicants. Due to non-servicing of interest and insufficient turnover in the account, the loan account was classified as NPA in the books of the bank on 31.03.2015 and the respondent bank had issued notice dated 28.04.2015 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the applicants. However the applicants had agreed to regularize the account and as requested by them the respondent bank had rescheduled the account for the applicants to carry on their business.

¶62

4.2 It is further submitted by the respondent bank that since the applicants were not able to keep sufficient stock as per the terms of Hypothecation, the 3^rd applicant who is the husband of the 2^nd applicant had agreed to create mortgage of his property as security for the loan facility of the 1^st applicant. The 1^st Applicant had specifically requested for coverage of the loan account by mortgage of property instead of coverage under CGTMSE, vide letter dated 21.12.2015 and cannot now turn back and dispute the same.

¶63

4.3 The 3^rd Applicant Mr.Muthuram, accordingly created Mortgage of his property, which is the subject matter of this SA, in favour of the

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

respondent bank on 11.12.2015 by depositing the original title deeds of the Schedule mentioned property with the respondent bank. The 3^rd applicant further executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 16/12/2015 registered as Doc. No.9289/2015 with SRO, Pammal in favour of the respondent bank, for the liability of Rs.80.00 lakhs in the CC account as well as the amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs sanctioned to him in the Housing and OD accounts availed by the 3^rd applicant.

¶68

4.4 Since the loan accounts were not conducted as agreed, and the interest and principal were not serviced on time, the accounts were again classified as NPA on 14.10.2016 and a fresh notice dated 21.11.2016 U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued to the applicants.

¶69

4.5 The said notice was challenged on various occasions, and in S.A.no.421/2022 subsequently renumbered as T.S.A.411/2023 with this Tribunal the Respondent Bank had withdrawn the notice dated 21/11/2016 as the notices sent by mail to the Applicants, could not be produced on account of the chaotic situation prevailing during COVID pandemic, and since the branch was also relocated to the new premises at the said point of time.

¶70

4.6 It is submitted by the respondent bank that the alleged directions and Guidelines of RBI, and the Code of Conduct of Banks, stated in the said paragraphs, have nothing to do with the classification of the accounts as NPA and need to be rejected outright.

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

4.7 It is further submitted by the respondent bank that the insurance claim for any loss due to burglary of the Applicant’s premises is a matter to be settled by the Insurance Company upon satisfactory submission of documents by the Customer, and has nothing to do with the Bank. Hence there is no strength in the allegation in Para 3 of the SA.

¶75

4.8 It is contended by the respondent bank that the Applicants have falsely contented in Para 11 of SA that “ The Respondent Bank had paid CGTMSE annual Charge lastly on 21/05/2015 which would be valid till 31/03/2016. The next annual charges fall due on 31/05/2016 which would be valid upto 31/03/2017”. The Respondent submits that though the CGTMSE Fee is paid by the Bank by debiting from the Customer’s account, the fee has to be borne by the customer, in this case, the Applicants. The customers were not paying even the interest and principal on time, leave alone the CGTMSE Fees which had to be paid for coverage

¶76

of the account under the scheme. Further the unit had ceased to be in existence and hence there was no provision of coverage of a non-existent unit under the CGTMSE. This fact has been conveniently suppressed by the Applicants.

¶77

4.9 With regard to the Allegation regarding creation of security interest are patently false, since the deposit of the Title deeds is made on 06.12.2015 creating security over the property for the Housing Loan availed by Mr.Muthuram and the CC limit of 80.00 lakhs availed by the 1^st Applicant, and the same is recorded and registered vide MOD dated

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

16.12.2015 registered as Doc.no.9289/2015 with SRO, Pammal. The said mortgage was extended to the account of 1^st Applicant on the specific request of the borrower dated 21/12/2015 and it was with the full knowledge and willingness of the Applicants. However, there is no restriction or bar on obtaining collateral security for a loan, already covered under the CGTMSE scheme and no document is produced to that effect. Having given their consent and voluntarily executed the MOD in favour of the Bank, the applicants are estopped from taking such a plea after 9 years of the said action.

¶82

4.10 The contention of the Applicant in Para 23 and the citation quoted is not relevant in this context, as it is with regard to the status of the Financial Creditor in case of mortgage by the Corporate, whereas in this case the Respondent is enforcing its rights as a secured creditor, wherein the mortgage of the property was confirmed by the borrower vide letter dated 21.12.2015 which also amounted to acknowledging the debt by borrower. In any case the documents in the account were well within limitation and the same is not disputed in the OA filed before this Hon’ble Court.

¶83

4.11 The allegation that the Respondent had sanctioned the Housing and OD was used for adjusting the liabilities of the 1^st Applicant, is utterly false, and in case that were so it amounts to the Applicants admitting the diversion of funds, which the Respondents have been saying right from the beginning, because of which the accounts turned into NPA. The crux

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

of the case is the diversion of funds lent by the Bank, to other purposes, and hence there was no security available to the Bank, in gross violation of the agreements executed with the Bank.

¶88

4.12 The demand notice dated 12.01.2023 was issued to the Applicants specifically mentioning therein that the notice dated 21.11.2016 was being withdrawn and hence all further proceedings said to be arising out the earlier notice, had abated. The applicants had also not complied with

¶89

the interim orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the earlier SA nor in the present SA 401/2024 and hence there was no stay on the further action as alleged by the Applicants.

¶90

4.13 It is submitted by the respondent bank that the Applicant has lost the right to challenge the demand and possession notice, and even the sale notice have since lapsed, since the limitation of 45 days applicable to challenge of the each of the Measures under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have long since lapsed, and hence the only challenge that could lie is to the order of Ld.CJM in CMP 6634/2023.

¶91

4.14 Respondent bank submits that the property has already been sold in public auction on 20.02.2024 and the possession was taken vide order dated 16/08/2024 of the Ld.CJM Chengalpet in Cr.M.P.6632 of 2023. Sale Certificate was issued to the auction purchaser on 30.05.2024, which was registered on 10.02.2025 vide Doc.no.1146/2025.

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

4.15 The various contentions raised by the Applicants related to Demand and Possession notice, have already been deemed to have been given up by the Applicants who did not challenge the Possession notice dated 16.03.2023 within the limitation set out in the Act, and are now debarred from doing so by the principle “waiver” and “collateral estoppel” when the property is already sold and the Sale certificate has also been executed in favour of the successful bidder. This principle has been

¶96

outlined by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Authorised officer, Indian Bank , which have been fortified in Bank of Baroda vs. Parasaadilal Turshiram Sheethgarh Pvt. Ltd ( 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1006), Authorised officer Indian Overseas Bank vs. Ashok Saw Mill(2009 SCC 8 366), and various other Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶97

4.16 It is further submitted by the respondent bank that the recent Apex Court Judgment in Celir LLP v. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others - Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 991 Hon’ble Apex Court has held that " Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be set-aside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding."

¶102

The court further held " In such cases, courts in particular should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confirmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity."

¶103

4.17 The Applicant is ab-initio in contravention of the Law laid down in the above judgment and has filed the Application much beyond the period of limitation, carefully challenging the physical possession order alone of the CJM Chengalpet, in CMP.no.6634/2023, while through the back door, seeking for intervention of the Tribunal to set aside the Possession notice and Sale notice, which have already been given up by them on the said principle of “waiver” and limitation. Having given up the opportunities to challenge the earlier actions till the sale of the property by the Authorised officer, the Applicants are now prevented from raising any of these contentions, which are barred by limitation, in the light of the above judgments, and when a third party interest has already been created in favour of auction purchaser.

¶104

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

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

5.1 It is manifest from the records that the Applicants are the borrower, who has availed a Unsecured Loan of Rs.80 lakhs, Housing Loan of Rs.50 lakhs and OD against Housing Loan of Rs.25 lakhs. In fact the Applicant admits the availing of the credit facilities to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs and also creation of the mortgage by deposit of title deeds favouring the Bank as collateral security to the credit facilities. In fact, the Applicant is also aware of filing OA due to the default in the repayment towards the credit facilities. Though the Applicant has challenged the Section 14 order has failed to point out any illegalities in the measures taken by the Respondent Bank. Due to the default in the repayment, the Bank has initiated measures after classifying the Account as NPA. Subsequently, the Bank has issued 13(2) demand notice dated 12.01.2023 demanding to discharge the outstanding liability.

¶109

5.2 In spite of receipt of the demand notice, as the Applicant did not raise any objection or repaid the entire loan amount, the Bank has issued the possession notice dated 16.03.2023, which was duly served on the Applicant. Despite service of the notices, the Applicant has not chosen to challenge any measure and hence the Bank has issued the sale notice fixing the E-Auction on 10.07.2023, 18.08.2023 and 30.01.2024 respectively. However, it is seen from the records that there were no bidders for the first two sale notices. The sale was conducted successfully pursuant to Sale Notice dated 30.01.2024 fixing the sale on 20.02.2024 and the sale certificate dated 30.05.2025 was also issued to the successful bidder.

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

5.3 It is manifest from the records that the Ld. CJM, have verified the documents produced by the Respondent Bank in the Section 14 Application and after due verification of the measures taken by the Respondent Bank has allowed the Section 14 Application vide order dated 17.05.2024. In fact, the Applicant has not made out any case or any violation in the Section 14 Application. However, the only contention taken by the Applicant is that there is no aggregate amount mentioned in the Section 14 Application. It is seen that the Respondent Bank have mentioned the outstanding amount due under the loan account and have complied to Section 14(i) to (ix). The Respondent Bank has filed the Section 13 (2) Demand Notice, Section 13 (4) Possession Notice and its Newspaper Publication, Sale Notice along with affixture and publication.

¶114

5.4 Thus, it is evident that the Applicant has filed the present SA only after the Auction sale was conducted and confirmed favoring the Auction Purchaser. Even otherwise, the Applicant has not pointed out any illegalities in the Section 14 order, as the same is challenged in the present SA. On the other hand, the Respondent Bank have initiated the measures in accordance with law and have produced all supporting documents for due service of Section 13(2) demand notice dated 12.01.2023, Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 16.03.2023 and Sale Notice dated 30.01.2024 and have duly established the compliance of the procedures, as mandated under the Acts and the Rules made there under.

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

5.5 Even otherwise, the order of the Magistrate cannot be challenged in any Court of Law, as per Section 14(3), of the Act and Section 14(3) is reproduced, as under: -

¶119

“No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate [any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate] done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority”.

¶120

5.6 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 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.

¶121

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

¶122

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 judgment is 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:

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

“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

¶127

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”.

¶128

5.8 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak

¶129

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

¶130

SA No.401/2024

¶131

18 06.10.2025

¶132

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

¶133

5.9 Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act states 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.

¶134

5.10 Thus, the S. 14 order is passed by the Ld. CJM after due consideration and is only an execution order where no adjudication is required. The Order is passed considering the compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix].

¶135

5.11 In the instant matter, it is seen from the S.14 application filed by the secured creditor along with the affidavit confirming the due compliance of S.14[1] to [ix] by rendering all the details as required under the proviso and on examination of the same the Hon’ble CJM has allowed the petition. Therefore the Tribunal is not persuaded to interfere in the S.14 Order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in C.M.P. No.6634 of 2023 and the same is held as lawful and held a valid order.

¶136

5.12 Further, the respondent bank at page 22 page 4 of their counter has submitted that the property has already been sold in public auction

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

on 20.02.2024 and the possession was taken on 16.08.2024 pursuant to the order of Ld. CJM, Chengalpet in C.M.P. No.6632 of 2023. In view of the same, the present SA has become infructuous and nothing survives for adjudication.

¶141

For the foregoing 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.

¶142

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

¶143

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 06^th day of October, 2025)

¶144

ANNEXURES

¶145

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶146

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Banking Regulations Act, 1949 dated 10.03.1949.	A-1
2.	RBI direction DBOD.No.BP.BC.128/21.04.048 – Zero Risk Wight dated 07.06.2001.	A-2
3.	CGTMSE circular No.1/2001-02-Zero Risk Wight dated 20.06.2001.	A-3
4.	RBI RPCD.No.PLNFS.BC.57/06.04.01/2001-2002 (Incipient Sickness) dated 16.01.2002.	A-4
5.	CGTMSE Circular No.6/2002-03 – allowed rephasement dated 22.10.2002.	A-5
6.	CGTMSE Circular No.10/2003-04 – Annual Fee payable within May 31^stof every year for March 31^stof each year dated 09.04.2003.	A-6
7.	CGTMSE Circular No.11/2003-04 – Annual Fee payable dated 03.07.2003.	A-7

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

8.	RBI directions Ref. DBS.FID No.C-3/01.02.00 (Preventive measures of NPAs) dated 17.07.2003.	A-8
9.	CGTMSE Circular No.12/2003-04 – Annual Fee payable with penalty dated 11.08.2003.	A-9
10.	CGTMSE Circular No.21/2004-05 restricted to take collateral dated 20.01.2005.	A-10
11.	CGTMSE Circular No.36/2007-08 – Block of 5 years dated 02.07.2007.	A-11
12.	CGTMSE Circular No.57/2009-10 – NPA classification dated 05.11.2009.	A-12
13.	Code of Bank's Commitment to Micro and Small Enterprises of Banking Codes and Standards Board of India [BCSBI] dated August, 2012.	A-13
14.	Sanction Letter for Rs.80,00,000/- under CGTMSE scheme along with clean copy dated 14.08.2012.	A-14
15.	RBI/2012-13/273 RPCD.CO.MSME & NFS.BC.40 /06.02.31/2012-2013 [Financial Assistance] dated 01.11.2012.	A-15
16.	CGTMSE Guarantee fee paid on 16.11.2012 run for 5 years dated 04.12.2012.	A-16
17.	Burglary Insurance Policy 04.02.2013 to 03.02.2014 dated 05.02.2013.	A-17
18.	Punjab National Bank Guidelines May 2013	A-18
19.	CSR No. CSR/83/RNPS/13 dated 23.06.2013.	A-19
20.	RBI/2013-14/69 DBOD No.Leg.BC.22/09.07.006 / 2013-14 (Directions to follow Banking Codes & compensation -customer service) dated 01.07.2013.	A-20
21.	FIR in Crime No.511 of 2013 with translated copy dated 11.07.2013.	A-21
22.	Burglary information acknowledged by Bank dated 15.07.2013.	A-22
23.	Agreement for Valudhalambedu factory dated 25.09.2013.	A-23
24.	Unit Photo at Ramapuram on burglary	A-24
25.	Unit Photo established at Valudhalambedu after burglary on promise to sanction financial facility	A-25
26.	Photo Furniture Panel ready for dispatch at require Hardware for packing	A-26
27.	Request letter for Rs.20 Lakh to bridge the burglary loss and to execute work order Rs.82.01 Lakh from the States of Meghalaya & Bihar dated 28.09.2013.	A-27
28.	M/s. S P Rai, Shillong, Meghalaya State Order & Letter of Intent for Rs.200 Lakh per annum with clean copy dated 23.08.2013.	A-28

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

29.	M/s. New Buxar Furniture House, Buxar Bihar State & Letter of Intent for Rs.175 Lakh per annum with clean copy dated 21.09.2013.	A-29
30.	Request letter for Rs.2.50 Lakh for urgent purchase of hardware to accommodate dispatch of Rs.28 Lakh enclosing Road Permits & Invoices dated 09.11.2013.	A-30
31.	Request letter for restructure based on stock & bills receivables without additional finance dated 30.12.2013.	A-31
32.	Punjab National Bank Code of Bank's Commitment to Customers dated Jan, 2014.	A-32
33.	Burglary claim rejected Rs.35,74,122/- dated 11.02.2014.	A-33
34.	RBI/2014-15/74 DBOD. No. BP.BC.9/ 21.04.048/ 2014-15 [IRAC Norms] dated 01.07.2014.	A-34
35.	M/s L&T – Order to get for Rs.1,65,34,540/- to execute at Kannur Air Port, Kerala State dated 08.09.2014.	A-35
36.	M/s L&T – Order to get for Rs.92,40,000/- to execute at JIPMER, Pondicherry dated 17.09.2014.	A-36
37.	M/s L&T – Order to get for Rs.15,13,500/- to execute at Bihar Museum, Bihar State dated 17.09.2014.	A-37
38.	Statement of Accounts showing payment of CGTMSE charges on 21.05.2015, paid to	A-38
	guarantee valid up to 31.03.2016 dated 24.09.2014 to 22.02.2016.
39.	M/s L&T – Order for Rs.72,23,363/- to execute at JIPMER, Pondicherry dated 18.10.2014.	A-39
40.	Request for Rs.25 Lakh Adhoc facility to execute M/s L&T order–denied dated 29.10.2014.	A-40
41.	Request at least for Rs.5 Lakh Adhoc facility to start to execute M/s L&T orders – refused dated 06.11.2014.	A-41
42.	M/s L&T – Order for Rs.98,58,200/- to execute at Bihar Museum, Bihar State dated 25.11.2014.	A-42
43.	M/s L&T – Order to get for Rs.4,82,46,730/- to execute at JIPMER, Pondicherry dated 08.01.2015.	A-43

¶155

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶156

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Letter from A1 confirming the security dated	R-1
	21.12.2015.
2.	Demand Notice dated 12.01.2023.	R-2

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025

3.	Acknowledgments to Demand notice.	R-3
4.	Possession notice dated 16.03.2023.	R-4
5.	Receipts and Postal track receipts for Possession notice.	R-5
6.	Photograph of Possession notice	R-6
7.	Paper publication of Possession notice	R-7
8.	Sale notice dated 30.01.2024.	R-8
9.	Acknowledgements of Sale notice	R-9
10.	Paper publication of Sale notice dated 01.02.2024.	R-10
11.	Sale certificate dated 30.05.2024.	R-11
12.	Panchnama by Advocate commissioner for physical possession dated 12.08.2024.	R-12
13.	Statement of account for Cash Credit A/c of 1^st Applicant from 01.01.2023	R-13
14.	Statement of account for Housing Loan A/c from 01.01.2023	R-14
15.	Statement of account for overdraft A/c from 01.01.2023	R-15

¶161

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶162

All that piece and parcel of land and building (Ground, 1^st and 2^nd Floor) bearing Plot No.28 measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft., an approved layout No. LPDM/DTP No.126/64, bearing Old Door No.2, New Door No.5, MGR Street, Cholavaram Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai 600 044 comprised in Old Parmaish No.755/2, 755/1, 756/1, 757/1, and 745/1 S.No.208/4, Patta No.2137, as per patta new S.No.208/1A1A1A1A/1A1A1C Situated at old No.129, New No.100, Pammal village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram, District vide and building permission in No.182/13 and PPA No.122/13 issued by Pammal Municipality (CMDA), Previous approved plan PP No.160/95, Lr No.513/95 dated 13.10.95 situated within registration sub-District of Pammal (Previously Pallavaram) Registration District of South Chennai

¶163

Bounded on the

¶164

North by Plot No.17,

¶165

South by 30 ft wide road,

SA No.401/2024

06.10.2025