Dismissed

Nabisha Leathers v. Cfm Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

DRT13 May 2025SA/419/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's securitization application challenging the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Section 14 order under SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that Section 14 proceedings are ministerial and non-adjudicatory, findings on notice service were based on record, and the challenge was time-barred beyond Section 17 limits.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; interim order granted, if any, stands vacated; Interpleader Applications closed.

Nabisha Leathers versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 13^th day of May, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 419 of 2023

¶8

M/s. Nabisha Leathers, Rep by its Proprietor, Mohammed Rafeek, No.39, Anna Salai, Nagalkeni, Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044.

¶9

...Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s. CFM Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., Registered Office at A/3, 5^th Floor, Safal Profitaire Near Prahlad Nagar Garden, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rep. by its Authorized Officer S. Eswarappa

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P. Tamilavel Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Ramalingam & Associates

¶15

:O R D E R:

¶16

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

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

The Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in CMP No.6158 of 2022 dated 22.07.2022 is impugned in the present SA and the outstanding Rs.9,36,20,635.18/p is due as per the Order.

¶21

3. Pleadings of the Applicant:

¶22

3.1 The Applicant is a Proprietary concern in the name and style of M/s. Nabisha Leathers (Rep by its Proprietor, Mr. Mohammed Rafeek) are in the business of manufacturing and exporting of high quality of finished leathers. During the course of business, the Applicant availed Cash Credit, term loan packing credit from the Respondent Bank in the year 2015 and the Applicant’s brothers stood as the Guarantors for the loan.

¶23

3.2 Due to several policy changes at macro-economic level, i.e. changes such as demonetization and GST, adding to fuel the Vardha Cyclone during December 2016, affected the business of the Applicant. The borrower has been making regular remittances in accordance with the payment schedule, as per the agreement and never allowed the account to become NPA.

¶24

3.3 Further due to the first wave of Pandemic COVID-19, on 22.03.2020, a Janatha Curfew was imposed by the State Government of Tamil Nadu and from 24.03.2020 and a National Lockdown imposed by Government of India and subsequently Second wave of Pandemic COVID-19 from 10.05.2021 to till September 2021, to which the Applicant’s business collapsed. The Respondent Bank has classified the account as NPA on 13.04.2020 and

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

classification of NPA made by the Respondent Bank is incorrect, false and violative.

¶29

3.4 The Respondent Bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice on 07.01.2021 calling upon the Applicant to pay overdue amount within 60 days from the date of notice, which is not served on all the parties, the Possession Notice dated 02.09.2021 is also not served on all the parties.

¶30

[

¶31

3.5 The Applicant sent a detailed objection dated 03.03.2021 to the Respondent which is duly received, the Applicant till date never received any reply under Section 13(3-A) of SARFAESI Act to the objection to the Section 13(2) Demand Notice. The Respondent without issuing a proper notice have issued Section 13(4) Possession Notice and may take forcible possession of the secured asset any time.

¶32

3.6 It is contended that there is no Section 13 (2) Demand Notice dated 07.01.2021 and Possession Notice under Section 13(4) dated 02.09.2021 is served to the Applicant. The Respondent Bank have not complied with Section 13(3A), hence cannot proceed further without replying to the objection to demand notice, hence, the Section 14 Application filed is bad in law

¶33

3.7 The amount paid by the Applicant is not duly adjusted to the loan account and have charged interest and penal interest against RBI guidelines. The payments are not given proper credit and suppressing all

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

these facts, the Bank has filed Section 14 Application before the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpet and have obtained an order.

¶38

3.8 The Respondent Bank has filed an application without the due compliance of the statutory requirements in issuing the Demand Notice and the Possession Notice and have not filed the correct outstanding amount due in the Section 14 Application and the statement of Account also does not reflect the outstanding amount. The Bank has not registered the security interest before the central registry, hence proceeding under the security act are null and void. The account never stepped into an NPA and hence classification by the Bank as NPA is incorrect.

¶39

3.9 The Applicant submits that the Bank has not filed the affidavit in confirmative to point No. (ix) of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and the Magistrate has failed to consider the issuance of notices have passed the order by appointing the Advocate Commissioner to take the possession. The Advocate Commissioner have issued the notice dated 21.07.2023 to vacate and hand over the property within 7 days.

¶40

3.10 On these grounds, the Applicant prays to set aside the Section 14 order passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpattu in CMP No.6158 of 2022 dated 22.07.2022.

¶41

3.11 Subsequently, applicant has filed additional set of documents in respect of OTS settlement and the notice of eviction issued by the advocate commissioner dated 09.11.2024.

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

4. Objections of the Respondent Bank:

¶46

4.1 The Respondent Bank in their counter submits that Mr. Mohammed Rafeek is the sole proprietor of M/s. Nabisha Leathers had availed credit facilities from M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd., and Mr. Mohamed Rizwan, Mr. Mohamed Buhari, Mr. Mohamed Nazeer, Mr. Mohamed Jinnah, Mrs. Sarbunisha, Mrs. Parveenbanu stood as the guarantors, who are all his close family members.

¶47

4.2 The Applicant and Guarantors originally enjoying the credit facilities with M/s. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., and in the year 2015, the Applicant approached M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd., seeking for take over of the credit facilities, from M/s. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Applicant, Mr. Mohamed Rizwan, Mr. Mohamed Buhari, Mr. Mohamed Nazeer, Mr. Mohamed Jinnah along with their mother, Mrs. Nabeesha Beevi had offered to be the guarantors and also offered to create mortgage over the immovable properties owned by them independently.

¶48

4.3 At the request of the Borrower and Guarantors, the Respondent Bank sanctioned the credit facilities vide sanction letter dated 23.03.2015, which are as under: -

¶49

Facility	Limits Sanctioned
	(Rs. In Lacs)
	Existing Revised

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

Cash Credit	- 50.00
Pre-Shipment Export Credit (EPC/PCFC)	- 225.00
Foreign Bills Purchased / Discounted (FBP/FBD/PSFC)/Advance against bills on collection	- 150.00
Long Term Loan	- 525.00
Foreign Currency Term Loan (FCTL)-(Sub	- (525.00)
Limit of Long TL)
TOTAL FB	950.00
Inland Letter of Credit	- 50.00
Counter Bank Guarantee (Sub Limit of	- (425.00)
Pre-Shipment Export Credit)
TOTAL NFB	50.00
TOTAL FB+NFB	1000.00
Forward Cover Limit	- 225.00
Interest Rate Swap Facility-to be used to	- 525.00
hedge the FCTL loan availed from IBL.

¶54

4.4 The applicants accepted the sanction and executed the loan

¶55

documents. At the request of the applicants on 23.03.2015, gave letter to

¶56

IndusInd Bank Ltd., that after closing the loan account from M/s. Jammu

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

and Kashmir Bank Ltd., they would deposit the original title deeds with the Bank and deposited the same with assignor Bank on 25.04.2015, thereby creating mortgage over their respective properties owned by them. The Applicant have also executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on 14.10.2015, which is registered as document no.7927 of 2015 on the file of SRO, Pammal.

¶61

4.5 The Respondent stipulated entire terms and conditions to the facility vide sanction letter dated 23.03.2015 and at the request of the borrowers have also issued Addendum letter dated 09.11.2015 by modifying the terms of the sanction letter.

¶62

4.6 The Applicant after availing requesting for renewal of the facility vide Application dated 05.09.2016, which the IndusInd Bank have renewed

¶63

the sanction credit limits, as given below:

¶64

Facility	Li	mits Sanctioned
		(Rs. In Lacs)
	Existing	Revised
Cash Credit – Standalone	50.00	50.00
Credit Credit @ (Sublimit to EPC)	0.00	(50.00)
Export Packing Credit / Packing Credit in	375.00	375.00
Foreign Currency **

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

Post Shipment in Foreign Currency /	(375.00)	(375.00)
Indian Rupees**
Term Loan – Fresh	525.00	486.35
FCNRB Loan I (Sublimit to working capital	(525.00)	(486.35)
term loan)
Sub-Total – A	950.00	911.35
Non-Fund based
Inland Letter of Credit (interchangeable with cash credit)	50.00	50.00
Sub-Total-B	50.00	50.00
Total (A+B)	1000.00	961.35

¶69

4.7 The borrower and the guarantors have acknowledged the terms

¶70

of the sanction renewal facility on 06.10.2016 and also executed a supplemental agreement and a letter for acknowledgment of Debt, extending the securities and confirming that the documents are in full force. Further at the request of the borrower and guarantors IndusInd Bank also issued an Addendum dated 18.10.2016, to the renewed sanction letter dated 22.09.2016 modifying certain terms and conditions.

¶71

4.8 Further the Applicant vide letter dated 05.10.2017 requesting

¶72

for renewal cum enhancement of credit facilities, which was also enhanced and the personal guarantee of Mrs. Nabeesha Beevi was discharged and

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

the personal guarantee of Mrs. Sarbunisha and Mrs. Parveen Banu were accepted. Further Mrs. Nabeesha Beevi property was released from the mortgage. Thus the immovable properties mortgaged by the guarantors were discharged and two properties mentioned in the SA schedule owned by the 1^st Defendant continued to be the security for the enhanced facilities.

¶77

4.9 The Borrower and the Guarantors availed the credit facilities and repayment and the operations of the facilities were not satisfactory. Further, the movables which were hypothecated were reduced and would not satisfy the outstanding amount, even the interest portion was not serviced by the Applicant and guarantors. Hence, the loan account was classified as NPA on 13.04.2020, as per RBI guidelines. Subsequently, the Applicant debt along with underlying securities was assigned by IndusInd Bank in favor of the Respondent herein under an Assignment Agreement dated 09.12.2020 registered as Document No.8120 of 2020 on the file of the SRO, Pammal. The Respondent stepped into shoes of IndusInd Bank Ltd., vide the said Assignment Agreement and are entitled to proceed against the Applicant in realizing the entire outstanding dues.

¶78

4.10 As the Applicants did not repay regularly towards loan account and in spite of repeated request, the Respondent issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 07.01.2021 to repay the total outstanding due together with interest within 60 days. The Respondent issued a corrigendum notice under Section 13(2) to all the borrowers / guarantors

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

to correct the outstanding due dated 31.12.2020 instead of 31.12.2021, which the Applicant and guarantors had acknowledged both Section 13(2) Demand Notice and corrigendum notice and sent a reply on 03.03.2021 making untenable allegations to which the Respondent Bank had issued suitable rejoinder on 18.03.2021 for the same.

¶83

4.11 After the expiry of 60 days, the borrower and the guarantors did not come and liquidate the liability within a period of 60 days. The Respondent moved further and issued further notice dated 02.09.2021 and Possession Notice was served on Applicant, affixed on 02.09.2021 and also published one in English Daily namely ‘The New Indian Express’ and another in Tamil Daily ‘Dinamani’ both dated 07.09.2021.

¶84

4.12 However, the Applicant and guarantors did not come forward to clear the outstanding amount due, hence the Respondent Bank have filed Section 14 Application before the Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu seeking assistance taking physical possession of the property. The Section 14 Application in CMP No.6158 of 2022 was allowed on 22.07.2022. Aggrieved by the Section 14 order, the present SA is filed by the Applicant.

¶85

4.13 It is contended that the classification of the Account as NPA is as per the RBI guidelines, demand notice was duly served on the Applicant and his objection to the demand notice was also duly replied by the Respondent.

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

4.14 The Respondent Bank denies the allegations made in the paragraphs of the SA and submits that the Applicant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,29,00,000/- to the Respondent and by trying all means the Applicant is thwarting the process. Hence, the Respondent Bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶90

5.0 Heard the arguments of respective parties and perused the records of the case.

¶91

It is manifest from the records that the applicant M/s. Nabisha Leathers is a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietor Mr. Mohammed Rafeek had availed credit facilities of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- from M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd., in the year 2015 and Mr. Mohamed Rizwan, Mr. Mohamed Buhari, Mr. Mohamed Nazeer, Mr. Mohamed Jinnah, Mrs. Sarbunisha, Mrs. Parveenbanu stood as the guarantors to the credit facilities who are all his close family members.

¶92

Subsequently, at the request of the applicants reduced the facility on 05.09.2016 to Rs.9,61,35,000/- . As the applciants yet again requested for enhancement the same was enhanced to Rs.10,46,53,000/- vide letter dated 28.10.2017

¶93

The Applicant approached M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd., in the year 2015 seeking for take over of the credit facilities, from M/s. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Applicant, Mr. Mohamed Rizwan, Mr. Mohamed Buhari, Mr. Mohamed Nazeer, Mr. Mohamed Jinnah along with their mother, Mrs.

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

Nabeesha Beevi are the guarantors and create mortgage over the immovable properties owned by them independently.

¶98

The loan was taken over and the sanction letter was accepted

¶99

by the borrower and the guarantors and also executed the loan documents. Further the credit facilities was secured by mortgage of the properties vide Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on 14.10.2015, which is registered as document no.7927 of 2015 on the file of SRO, Pammal

¶100

At the request of the applicants the terms and conditions of sanctioned were modified and renewed, which the borrower has accepted to the terms of the sanction renewal facility on 06.10.2016 and also executed a supplemental agreement and a letter for acknowledgment of Debt, extending the securities and confirming that the documents IndusInd Bank also issued an Addendum dated 18.10.2016, to the renewed sanction letter dated 22.09.2016 modifying certain terms and conditions

¶101

The applicant does not deny the renewal and enhancement of the credit facilities, personal guarantee of Mrs. Nabeesha Beevi was discharged and the personal guarantee of Mrs. Sarbunisha and Mrs. Parveen Banu were accepted. Further Mrs. Nabeesha Beevi property was released from the mortgage. Thus the immovable properties mortgaged by the guarantors were discharged and two properties mentioned in the SA schedule continued to be the security for the enhanced facilities.

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

The Borrower and the Guarantors after availing the credit facilities were irregular and defaulted in payment of interest portion resulting in classification of the account as NPA on 13.04.2020, as per RBI guidelines. Further the debt of applicant was assigned by IndusInd Bank in favour of the Respondent vide Assignment Agreement dated 09.12.2020 registered as Document No.8120 of 2020 on the file of the SRO, Pammal

¶106

The Respondent issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 07.01.2021 demanding the total outstanding due in the loan accounts together with interest within 60 days. As there was an error in mentioning correct the outstanding due dated 31.12.2020 instead of 31.12.2021, respondent issued corrigendum notice under Section 13(2) to all the borrowers / guarantors mentioning the correct outstanding due dated 31.12.2020. The Applicant and guarantors acknowledged both Section 13(2) Demand Notice and corrigendum notice and even sent a reply on 03.03.2021 making unsustainable allegations to which the Respondent Bank had replied vide their letter dated 18.03.2021.

¶107

Thus, it is evident the respondent after classifying the account as NPA, has issued S.13[2] notice dated 07.01.2-21 which is sent by RPAD and have produced eh returned covers/acknowledgement cards. Further the outstanding amount due as on the date is corrected by Corrigendum notice dated 22.01.2021 which is admitted received by the applicants.

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

In fact there is no dispute in respect of service of demand notice and the applicants have raised objections vide letter dated 03.03.2021 to the demand notice under S.13[3A] and the respondent have replied to the said letter by reply dated 18.03.2021 in compliance of the objections and have established the due procedures in issuing S.13[2] notice, and compliance of S.13[3A] as required under the Act.

¶112

It is seen from the demand notice, the details of borrowing, mortgages of the properties, classification of account as NPA, respondent has intimated about S.13[13] the restriction on the borrowers and mortgagors not to alienate the secured interest and the redemption clause under S.13[8]. Thus it is held that the S.13[2] demand notice 07.01.2021 is a valid notice issued in compliance of procedures as required under the Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶113

As the borrower, mortgagors did not comply with the demand made within 60 days, respondent bank has issued S.13[4] possession notice dated 02.09.2021 which returned unserved as per page 367-371, the possession notice is affixed on 02.09.2021 as per copy of the photographs produced by the respondent at [ages 372-377.

¶114

In furtherance to the measure, the respondent has published the possession notice in two newspapers, one in English Daily namely ‘The New Indian Express’ and another in Tamil Daily ‘Dinamani’ both dated 07.09.2021.[paged 378- 379]

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

The respondent has issued the S.13[4] in recognised procedures and have established that the procedures taken are in accordance of the Act and Rules. Therefore the S.13[4] possession notice dated 02.09.2021 is held as lawful notice issued under the Act.

¶119

Though the applicant has assailed the S.14 order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpattu in CMP No.6158 of 2022 has challenged the entire measures initiated by respondent right from classification of the account as NPA, S.13[2] demand notice dated 07.01.2021, S.13[4] possession notice dated 07.09.2021 and the challenge to the possession notice is not within the period of 45 days. The Applicant waived his right to challenge the same under S.17 within 45 days as the present SA filed on 05.08.2023, beyond the period of 45 days which cannot sustain.

¶120

Now considering the challenge to S.14 order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpattu in CMP No.6158 of 2022, the applicant has produced the S.14 application dated 29.12.2021 and the S.14 Order dated 22.07.2022, where it is seen that the Respondent as secured creditor has mentioned the loan availed, details of loan documents executed, mortgage of the property and extension of the mortgage, assignment of debt, issuance of demand notice and its service, corrigendum notice and it acknowledged cards.

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

The issuance of S.13[4] possession and its unserved coves and the total outstanding amount due as on 15.12.2021 along with affidavit of the authorised officer rendering the details as required under S.14[i] to S.14[ix]. The Hon’ble CJM after due consideration of the documents and the measures taken by the respondent has allowed the application appointing an advocate commissioner to take the physical possession.

¶125

The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts have held in various judgments 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.

¶126

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. 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 above Bombay High Court judgement has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgement dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶127

“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

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

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”.

¶132

Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak 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 even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between secured creditor and debtor.”

¶133

26. 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 this section can be challenged in court or before any other authority. Thus the provision ensures that the authority of these officials in enforcing security interests is final and not subject to further review.

¶134

Therefore the Tribunal is not persuaded to interfere in the S.14 Order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpattu in CMP No.6158 of 2022.

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

As the respondent has established the due compliances of measures initated under the Act in issuing S.13[2] demand notice dated 07.01.2021, S.13[4] possession notice dated 07.09.2021 as prescribed under the Act and Rules made thereunder, hence the said notices are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶139

For the foregoing reasons, the present SA fails and accordingly is dismissed. Interim Order granted if any stands vacated. IA’s if any stands closed in terms of this Order.

¶140

(Dictated to Steno (Sudhakar), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 13^th day of May, 2025)

¶141

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

¶142

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

¶143

Property - Item 1:

¶144

All that piece and parcel of vacant plots total Measuring 3024 sq.ft. or 280.93 sq. Mtrs., bearing plot Nos.21 and 22, in block No.3-B, Situated at old village Nos.129,100,88, New village No.23, Pammal Village, Rangaswamy Street, Thiru Nagar, Chennai - 600 075, Comprised in Survey No.206/13A/1A2, patta No.8251, as per patta new Survey No.206/101A2, in Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District Bonded on the;

¶145

North by : 3^rd Cross Street, South by : Plot No.23 and Property belongs to Mr. Thambidurai, East by : 2^nd site Road,

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

West by : Plot No.20 and House belongs to Mr. Babukhan.

¶150

Measuring:

¶151

East to West on the Northern Side : 55’, East to West on the Southern Side : 53’, North to South on the Eastern Side : 58’, North to South on the Western side : 54’,

¶152

And situated within the Registration District of Chennai South and Sub-Registration District of Pammal.

¶153

Property - Item II:

¶154

All that piece and parcel of the Land and Building, Door No.39, Anna Salai, Nagalkeni, Chrompet, Chennai measuring an extent of 16 Grounds and 460 Sq.ft., together with the right of usage of passage or way in, on, over, upon and through the land bearing Survey No.121, comprised in Patta No.310 in the village of the above said 129, Pammal to width 25’ from North to South and to a length extending right from Anna Salai to throughout the land, comprised in S.No.108/3, as per Patta S.No.108/40B, situated at Pammal Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, (then Chenglepet District) and bounded on the,

¶155

North by	:	The Property of Mr. AdamHathila @ Mr. Haji Hathila alias H.A. Hathila.
South by	:	Property belonging to Mr. Hasan Basha in S.N.102.
East by	:	The Land belonging to the of Mr. Adam Hathila @
		Mr. Haji Hathila alias H.A. Hathila.
West by	:	Passage land belonging to the Mr. Adam Hathila @
		Mr. Haji Hathila alias H.A. Hathila.

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

and situated within the Registration District of Chennai South and Sub-Registration District of Pammal.

¶160

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶161

Sl.	Description of Documents	Page No.
No.
1.	Memorandum of Appeal dated 01.08.2023.	A-1
2.	Sale Deed Registered as Doc No.4527/2015 on the file of SRO Pammal dated 10.06.2015.	A-2
3.	Demand Notice U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 07.01.2021.	A-3
4.	Corrigendum to Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 22.01.2021.	A-4
5.	Objection Letter dated 03.03.2021.	A-5
6.	Possession Notice u/s 13(4) SARFAESI Act dated 07.09.2021.	A-6
7.	C.M.P. NO.6158 of 2021 on the file of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu dated 29.12.2021.	A-7
8.	Order copy in C.M.P. No.6158 of 2022 on the file of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu dated 22.07.2022.	A-8
9.	Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner dated 21.07.2023.	A-9
10.	Vakalat dated 01.08.2023	A-10

¶162

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶163

SI.No	Description of Documents	Page No.
1	1^stOne Time Settlement (OTS) offering letter issued by the respondent institution dated 30.11.2023	A-1
2	1^stOTS Revocation Letter issued by the respondent institution dated 01.02.2024	A-2

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

3	2^ndOne Time Settlement (OTS) offering letter issued by the respondent institution dated 01.04.2024	A-3
4	2^ndOTS Revocation Letter issued by the respondent institution dated 24.07.2024	A-4
5	Loan resettlement proposal acknowledged by the respondent institution dated 26.09.2024	A-5
6	Loan resettlement proposal rejected by the respondent institution dated 30.10.2024.	A-6
7	Notice of Eviction issued by the Advocate Commissioner dated 09.11.2024.	A-7

¶168

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶169

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	Section 14 Applicant filed by the Respondent.	R-1
2.	Loan Applicant submitted by the Applicant with M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) dated 23.02.2015.	R-2
3.	Sanction Letter issued by M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) to the Applicant dated 23.03.2015.	R-3
4.	Sanction Letter issued by M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respond) to the Applicant dated 22.09.2016.	R-4
5.	Sanction Letter issued by M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) to the Applicant dated 28.10.2017.	R-5
6.	Hypothecation Agreement entered into between M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) and the Applicant dated 23.03.2015.	R-6

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

7.	Master General Agreement entered into between M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) and the Applicant dated 23.03.2015.	R-7
8.	Multi Facility Loan Agreement entered into between M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) and the Applicant dated 23.03.2015.	R-8
9.	Letter of Continuing Guarantee executed by the applicant to M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) dated 23.03.2015.	R-9
10.	Agreement for creating Equitable mortgage executed between the M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) and the Applicant dated 23.03.2015.	R-10
11.	Supplemental deed of Hypothecation executed by the Applicant in favour of M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) dated 08.11.2017.	R-11
12.	Term Loan Agreement entered into between M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) and the Applicant dated 08.11.2017.	R-12
13.	Letter of Continuing Guarantee executed by the Applicant in favour M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) dated 08.11.2017.	R-13
14.	Declaration for Extension of Mortgage by way of constructive delivery executed by the Applicant in favour of M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) dated 08.11.2017.	R-14
15.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 14.10.2015 executed by the Applicant in favour of M/s. Indusind Bank (assignor of the Respondent) Registered as Document No.7927 of 2015, on the file of Sub-Registrar office, Pammal.	R-15
16.	Debt Assignment agreement entered into between M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd and the Respondent registered as Document No.8120 of 2020, on the file of Sub-Registrar office, Pammal dated 09.12.2020.	R-16
17.	Demand Notice Under Section 13(2) of the Act issued by the Respondent to the Applicant dated 07.01.2021.	R-17
18.	Returned covers/Acknowledgement Cards.	R-18
19.	Corrigendum Notice to the Demand Notice issued by the Respondent to the Applicant dated 22.01.2021.	R-19
20.	Acknowledgement Cards.	R-20

SA No.419/2023

13 .05.2025

21.	Reply Notice to the Demand Notice issued by the Applicant to the Respondent dated 03.03.2021.	R-21
22.	Rejoinder to the reply notice dated 03.03.2021 to the Respondent by the petitioner dated 18.03.2021.	R-22
23.	Possession Notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act by the Respondent to the Applicant dated 02.09.2021.	R-23
24.	Returned Covers.	R-24
25.	Affixture of Possession Notice dated 02.09.2021.	R-25
26.	Paper Publication effected in one issue of English daily by name “The New Indian Express” dated 07.09.2021.	R-26
27.	“Paper Publication effected in one issue of Vernacular daily by name “Dinamani” dated 07.09.2021.	R-27

¶178

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

Nabisha Leathers v. Cfm Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabisha Leathers v. Cfm Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

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

Mrs Sridevi T versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sivasankari

Bank of Maharashtra versus Suyambulingam

City Union Bank Limited versus Avejoo Enterprises

Nandhi Dall Mills versus Idbi Bank

Mr K Sivakumar S o R Kaliaperumal versus State Bank of India