Dismissed

Mr v. Udhayakumar S O Venkadasamy v Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT6 May 2025SA/433/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application challenging the compulsory auction sale notice issued by a bank. The court held that the borrower failed to redeem the property before the sale notice was published and the sale had already been completed and certified.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 21.09.2022 and auction on 28.10.2022 held as valid; Appellant's petition dismissed.

Mr v Udhayakumar S O Venkadasamy versus Kotak Mahindra Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 06^th day of May, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 433 of 2022

¶8

Mr. V. Udhayakumar, Aged 49 Years, S/o. Venkadasamy, Proprietor of, M/s. SriVenkateshwara Catering Services, H No.5, Achari Street, Pidarikuppam Road, Sanniyasikuppam, Pudhucherry -605 107. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorised Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, No.60, Gandhi Bazar Main Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore, Karnataka -560 004. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. V. Manisekaran Counsel for Respondent : M/s. V. Jayachandran

¶13

ORDER ON SA 433 /2022

¶14

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].

¶15

The applicant is challenging the Sale Notice dated 21.09.2022 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.5,17,56,093.85p

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

The applicant is proprietor of M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Catering Services had availed DLOD and Term Loan of Rs. 4,59,47,000/- on 28.02.2017 from the respondent for their business purpose. The Applicant also owns and manages the business in the name and style of M/s. Shabdha Consultancy had approached the bank for loans for their business, the loan is secured by the guarantee of Mr. V. Udhayakumar and Mrs. U. Latchoumy, who is the wife of Mr. V. Udhayakumar, and as mortgagor have executed 7 items of properties as security towards the credit facility.

¶20

The respondent on scrutiny of the application and credit worthiness of applicant and other borrowers approved DLOD & ATL of Rs. 6,29,47,000/- on 28.02.2017. The applicant created MODT by mortgaging 7 items of immovable properties worth of Rs. 12.5 Crores vide Document No. 5021/2017 dated 19.04.2017 favoring the bank.

¶21

However, the bank did not disburse the entire amount they have disbursed only an amount of Rs. 4,59,47,000/- an amount of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- was not disbursed as per the entire sanction amount and the applicants were forced to pay the repayments and interest for the funds not disbursed also. Due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the applicant suffered severe setbacks due to lockdown however, applicant had made a payment of Rs. 1.8 Crores as have remitted monthly EMI of the loan sum.

¶22

Inspite of receiving the regular repayments, the bank had declined to the requests of the applicant for continuous transactions and initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued notice under S. 13(2) on

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

20.12.2019 followed by S. 13(4) possession notice dated 12.03.2020 allegedly declaring that the bank has taken symbolic possession for an amount of Rs. 3,30,29,876.34.

¶27

It is alleged that the bank has calculated the EMI for sum of Rs. 6,29,52,000/- and the borrowers were making the repayment of Rs. 7,00,000/- every month as EMI and the bank has calculated the outstanding amount due based on the un-debited portion of interest which is not reflected in the accounts status.

¶28

It is contended that the bank has not affixed the possession notice on the property and also not published in two newspapers having sufficient circulation, however, they have taken auction which is not valid as per Rule 6 and 7 of the Security Interest Rules.

¶29

It is also required to mention time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed, deposit of earnest money to be stipulated by the respondent and purchaser to know the nature and value of the property as per Rules 7(d), (e) and (f). The respondent have not followed the mandatory provisions which is absent in the sale notice dated 21.09.2022. The bank has not followed the measures in issuing the S. 13(4) possession notice dated 12.03.2020 and avoided the affixture of the notice without following the procedures as laid under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules.

¶30

It is submitted that authorized officer failed to obtain the valuation of the property rom approved valuer and thereafter only fix the reserve proce

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

of the property and then sell the whole or any part such immoveable secured asset as per Rule8. It is seen from the sale notice dated 21.09.2022 that the bank is conducting the e-auction on 28.10.2022 where the value of the property is much lower than the prevailing rate which cannot be compensated by means of money. Thus, the reserve price of Rs. 2,38,56,000/- fixed by the respondent bank for sale of the secured asset has to obtain a fresh valuation report either from the bank’s Expert valuer or from the applicant’s valuer to avoid huge financial loss. Hence, the applicant issued the legal notice on 09.08.2021 to sell the secured asset on the prevailing market rate through the applicant’s buyer which did not yield any result.

¶35

The sale notice was issued to the mortgage properties on 21.07.2021 for recovery of amount of Rs. 4,11,40,028/- which the applicant challenged in SA. No. 112 of 2021 and the Hon’ble Tribunal had granted a conditional order on 30.08.2021 directing the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs on or before 13.09.2021. The applicant had complied with the interim order belatedly due to some clash of trespasses on the property between the applicants and the rowdy elements however, the bank have accepted the amount as per the directions of this Tribunal.

¶36

The applicant entered into OTS with the bank and the applicant had to settle the dues of Rs. 350 Lakhs on or before 15.04.2022 which was extended upto 20.07.2022.

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

It is pertinent to point out that, the other financial institutions namely M/s. Canara Bank and Indus Ind Bank have initiated proceedings on the other properties. Hence, the applicant deposited Rs. 70 Lakhs in the two bank loan accounts to avoid the future complication after settlement. The applicant was unable to honor the One Time Settlement as his son U. Kiranesh met with major road accident and his medical expenses was more than Rs. 40 Lakhs. Hence, the applicant could not honor the OTS settlement.

¶41

It is alleged that the loan was sanctioned on 28.02.2017 whereas the S. 13(2) demand notice is 20.12.2019, the date of NPA is mentioned as 28.09.2011which the respondent bank put a wrong date in the demand notice. However, the applicant was repaying the installment due regularly and as per the bank details the bank has not followed the mandatory requirement before initiating the SARFAESI Act.

¶42

In the grounds, it is contended that the authorized officer has classified the account as NPA on 18.10.2019 and 18.11.2019 which is illegal and without any basis. S. 13(4) possession notice issued without following the due procedure even before the objections or communications of the applicant for the demand notice under S. 13(2). The 13(4) possession notice is not affixed on the property and has not published in the 2 newspapers as mandated under the Act.

¶43

The authorized officer failed to obtained the valuation from the approved valuer before fixing the reserve price and further the bank has

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

obtained S.14 order from the Hon’ble CJM at Puducherry. The Hon’ble CJM has failed to issue notice to the applicant during the lockdown period for physical possession of the schedule mentioned property. When the legal notice was issued to correct the mistakes and save the clutches of the law they have approached the Hon’ble CJM and have obtained an order.

¶48

The applicant on the basis of the assurance given by the respondent bank transferred his entire loan availed by him to another bank and mortgaged the property in favor of the respondent bank. After transfer of loans, the bank failed to disburse the part of the loan amount which caused severe hardship and the respondent collecting exorbitant interest and penal interest. Hence, the applicant prays to set aside the sale notice dated 21.09.2022 fixing the sale on 28.10.2022.

¶49

The respondent bank in their counter inter alia submits that the present applicant filed the present SA challenging the auction sale notice at the 11^th hour which deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶50

It is the case of the respondent bank that the applicant were enjoying various financial facilities with NBFCs namely with L&T Finance Ltd and also with Canara Bank were taken over by the respondent bank, apart from extending additional financial assistance in all amounting at Rs. 279.52 Lakh in 28.02.2017. The applicant after utilizing the entire facilities and defaulted to repay the loan along with the applicable interest as per the terms and conditions in their loan accounts.

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

In spite of continuous follow ups the applicant failed and neglected to make periodical payments and the defaulted arrears. Hence, the account has classified as NPA on 28.09.2011, 18.10.2019 and 18.11.2019 which was followed by the issuance of S.13(2) demand notice dated 20.12.2019 were duly served on all the addressees and the notice is also placed at Pg. 73 of the typeset.

¶55

Despite service of the demand notice on an expiry of 60 days since no payments were made respondent bank were constrained to initiate further proceedings in taking the symbolic possession of the secured asset vide possession notice dated 12.03.2020 under S. 13(4) of the Act meticulously complying acts and rules. However, the applicant has not challenged the act of taking possession of the property and neither made any payments.

¶56

Hence, the bank after taking symbolic possession have filed the S. 14 application and obtained an order dated 18.08.2021 from the Hon’ble CJM Puducherry inview of no payments by the applicant, respondent bank issued 1^st sale notice 21.07.2021 claiming an amount of Rs. 4,11,40,028/due as on 30.06.2021 and the sale notice is at pg. 89 of the applicants SA book. Applicants have challenged the 1^st sale notice in SA.No. 112/2021 to stall the sale proceedings. Though, the applicant filed a e-memo expressing his intension to deposit 20% of the outstanding amount shown in the sale notice dated 21.08.2021 and based on the undertaking the Tribunal passed an order of Status-Quo on 30.08.2021 on conditional payment of Rs. 60 Lakhs on or before 13.09.2021.

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

Inspite of the undertaking the payments made by the applicants of 20% of the outstanding notified at Rs. 4,11,40,028/- in the sale notice, the applicant failed and neglected to make the said conditional payment of Rs. 60 Lakhs and abused the process of this Tribunal by obtaining the StatusQuo order and neglected to pay the payment and stall the 1^st sale notice without making any conditional payment of Rs. 60 Lakhs.

¶61

The bank even after expiry of more than 3 years from the date of demand notice dated 20.12.2019 is yet to recover the outstanding amount due. The applicant is dragging on the matter and approached for OTS which the respondent considered vide letter dated 19.03.2022 for OTS amount of Rs. 4.10 Crores, out of which an upfront payment of Rs. 60 Lakh was paid and the balance of Rs. 3.5 Crore was to be paid into two instalments, out of which Rs. 1.4 Crore shall be payable on or before 31.03.2022 and the 2^nd payment at Rs. 2.1 Crore shall be payable on or before 15.04.2022.

¶62

Inspite of time given up to 15.04.2022 to make the entire payment as per OTS settlement and the date was extended till 20.07.2022 on the promise of the payments to make the payment of Rs. 3.5 Crores. The applicant failed to make the payment even to the extended period and failed to adhere to OTS settlement. Hence, OTS settlement failed resulting the property to be put for sale for recovery of the entire outstanding amount.

¶63

The applicant after obtaining the OTS settlement withdrew the SA.No. 112/2021 dated 24.03.2022, but once again wilfully defaulted and the

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

applicant is protracting and abusing the process of law even more than 3 years. Thus, respondent bank issued 2^nd sale notice dated 21.09.2022 to recover the entire outstanding amount payable of Rs. 5,17,56,092.85/- due as on 20.09.2022 fixing the sale on 28.10.2022 by duly complying the acts and rules there under.

¶68

Though, the respondent bank had obtained S. 14 order dated 18.08.2021, the applicant protracted the execution of the order in taking the physical possession of the secured assets, which was taken only on 23.08.2022, as the applicant was exploiting and protracting the execution of the order.

¶69

28 The applicant have initiated the proceedings with the sole intention to protract the proceedings without making any payment towards the loan account and inspite of specific undertaking in SA.No. 112/2021 to make the payment of Rs. 60 Lakhs flouted his own undertaking and filed a memo dated 27.10.2022 in the present SA expressing his willingness to pay the 20% of the reserve price which cannot be considered as the applicant is flouting his own undertaking and there is a bad precedent of such act before this Tribunal.

¶70

The applicant have committed default in complying their own undertaking and the second sale notice dated 21.09.2022 was served on the applicant well in advance and the present SA is filed on 26.10.2022 and the applicant served the copies only on 27.10.2022, in spite of knowing the auction sale on 28.10.2022.

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

The bank submits the applicant received the auction sale notice much prior to the date of the impugned action, they did not bring any purchaser either for the value of the reserve price and neither objected or the reserve price fixed by the bank for sale of the secured assets.

¶75

The property is sold in the public auction on 28.10.2022 to the highest bidder upon payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,39,06,000/- against the reserve price at Rs. 2,39,56,000/- and issued sale certificate to one Mrs. R T. Rajeswarie, daughter of Mr. Thiruvengadam, Door No. 117, Muthumariamma Koil Street, Pondicherry.

¶76

After the sale is over, the bank intimated the borrowers to take the moveable’s lying inside the secured asset which was sold and the applicant partially lifted only 4 carton boxes containing movables leaving rest of the movables inside the premises.

¶77

Inspite of officials requesting the applicants to remove all their movables, applicant vide letter dated 28.11.2022 notifying the respondent to be present for removing rest of their movables on 05.12.2022. On 05.12.2022, the respondent waited from 10 AM to 6 PM, the applicant did not come to the property to take their movables. Hence, the bank issued letter dated 05.12.2022 notifying the applicant to remove all their movables by giving one more chance on 07.12.2022 between 11 AM to 4.00PM. However, the applicant has frustrated the measures taken by the respondent bank, whereas the respondent bank have meticulously followed the procedures as contemplated under the Act.

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

Though the applicant had received the sale notice did not object to the sale process, failed to bring the private party for the sale. The applicant have challenged the sale notice dated 21.09.2022 without pointing out any lacuna or alleged non-compliance of the acts in selling the secured assets. Hence, the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the appeal with exemplary costs.

¶82

Heard and perused the record of the case.

¶83

It is manifest from the records that applicant being the proprietor of Sri. Venkateshwara Catering services and M/s. Shabdha consultancy have availed the DLOD and Term Loans from the respondent bank for a sum of Rs. 4,59,47,000/-. The applicant created MODT by mortgaging 7 items of immovable properties worth of Rs. 12.5 Crores owned by applicant and other borrowers which is registered vide document No. 5021/2017 dated 19.04.2017.

¶84

Further, it is seen that the applicant does not dispute the availing of various financial facilities with NBFC, namely with L & T Finance Ltd and also with Canara Bank and all the said facilities were taken over by the respondent bank, apart from extending additional assistance in all at Rs. 29.52 Lakhs in 28.02.2017.

¶85

The respondent has produced the sanctioned letters issued to Mrs. Latchoumy.U dated 28.02.2017, Loan sanction to Sabdha Consultancy dated 28.02.2017, Loan sanction to M/s. Venkateswara Catering services

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

dated 28.02.2017 and Loan sanction to Mrs. Latchoumy.U dated 21.03.2017.

¶90

It is seen from the sanction letters that it is a takeover loan, the applicant does not dispute the availing of the credit facility and the creation of the mortgage of 7 items of property as collateral security towards the credit facility availed by them. The only contention by the applicant is that there was a delay in repayment and has requested that DLOD account to be considered as OD amount or change as long time loan(TL) for regular repayment.

¶91

As the applicant default in servicing the loan and in repaying the loan amount towards the credit facilities, the accounts of the applicants was classified as NPA and the respondent bank after classifying the account as NPA has initiated the measures under the SARFAESI Act. After classifying the account as NPA the bank has also issued the legal notice dated 17.12.2019, the copy of the demand notice at Pg. 33 to 81.

¶92

It is seen from the S. 13(2) demand notice dated 20.12.2019 that the bank has issued the legal notice dated 17.12.2019 and it is addressed to Sri. Venkateshwara Catering services, M/s. Sabdha Consultancy, Mr. V. Udayakumar, Mrs. U. Latchoumy, Mr. N. Balaji. S. 13(2) clearly describes the nature of the loan availed by the applicants herein, and mortgage of the properties created by Mrs. U. Latchoumy and Mr. V. Udayakumar as security. Further the notice clearly mentions the outstanding amount due in the overdraft facility is Rs. 1,17,28,057.75/- and amount due in the Term

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

Loan is Rs. 2,13,01,818.59/-. Hence, the bank has demanded to repay the aggregate amount of Rs. 3,30,29,876.34Ps within the period of 60 days. Further the S. 13(2) demand notice clearly mentions the date of NPA on 28.09.2011, 18.10.2019 and 18.11.2019.

¶97

The respondent has intimated about S. 13(13) of the act restricting the mortgagor not to transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise dispose of the said secured assets detailed in schedule ‘C’ of this notice without obtaining prior written consent of the bank. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of S. 13(2) demand notice by the applicants herein.

¶98

As the applicants did not raise any objections to the demand notice nor given any representation to the respondent bank as required under S. 13(3A) within the period of 60 days and on completion of 60 days the bank has proceeded further and issued the possession notice dated 12.03.2020. The mortgaged property and the outstanding due in the loan amount is not disputed by the applicant.

¶99

Mr. Udhayakumar, representing Sri. Venkateshwara Catering services sought weeks time to pay the pending dues as on date and sought for OTS by e-mail dated 24.03.2020. Though the applicant have raised contention that the S. 13(4) possession notice dated 12.03.2020 is not received by them and it was not published in Newspapers as prescribed under the Act is contrary to the e-mail dated 24.03.2020, as it clearly

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

depicts the request of one weeks to settle all pending due as on date which is subsequent to the issuance of S.13[4] dated 12.03.2020.

¶104

As per the procedure, the respondent bank have affixed the possession notice on the secured asset which is evidenced by the photographs at Pg. 25 & 26. Further, the bank vide letter dated 21.09.2022 have also brought to the notice of the applicants the redemption clause under S. 13(8) of the act. The applicants though being aware of issuance of S.13[4] notice has not exercised their right to challenge the same under S.17 of the Act.

¶105

The Tribunal had to adjudicate the measures taken by the secured creditor in an application under S 17. Admittedly, the challenge to S. 13(4) possession notice dated 12.03.2020 is not within the period of 45 days and the applicant slept over his right and now raised contention about the possession notice along with sale notice dated 21.09.2022.

¶106

The applicants has also not challenged the S.14 order passed by Ld. Hon’ble CJM, Puducherry, Crl.M.P.No. 4090/2021 and at the time of execution of warrant has sought time to take the movables from the secured assets while the respondent bank executed order. It is also seen from the records that the applicant was not cooperating with the bank in taking the movable articles in spite of the bank letter dated 05.12.2022 requesting the applicants to take the movables from the premises inspite of sufficient opportunities given to applicant.

¶107

Thus, it is evident that the applicant was fully aware of the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, having through

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

knowledge has not challenged the measures of S. 13(4) possession notice dated 12.03.2020 and the S. 14 order dated 18.08.2021. Hence, the same does not require any consideration in the instant matter.

¶112

Now considering the challenge to the sale notice dated 21.09.2022, records clearly reflects that the present challenge is second sale notice issued by the bank. It is a matter to record that the 1^st sale notice dated 21.07.2021 is issued claiming an amount of Rs 4,11,40,028/- as on 30.08.2021 which the applicant have produced at Pg. 89 of the SA paper book. Infact, there is no dispute with applicant challenged the 1^st sale notice in SA.No. 112 of 2021 and based on the express intentions to deposit 20% of the outstanding amount, the Tribunal has granted Status-Quo vide order dated 30.08.2021 and conditional payment of Rs. 60 Lakhs on or before 13.09.2020.

¶113

Evidently, the applicant has failed to comply with the conditional payment of Rs. 60 Lakhs, dragged on the matter and stalled the 1^st sale notice without making any conditional payments. Applicants approached the bank for an OTS vide letter dated 19.03.2022 for a settlement of amount of Rs. 4.10 Crores along with Rs. 60 Lakhs to be paid and the balance of Rs. 3.5 Crores in two instalments. However, the applicant could not comply with the payments and the bank also extended the payment till 20.07.2022, which applicant fails miserably to comply with the OTS settlement inspite of extended period for payment.

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

The applicant have challenged the second sale notice dated 21.09.2022 to recover the entire outstanding of Rs. 5,17,56,092.85 fixing the sale on 28.10.2022. The respondent bank have issued the sale notice dated 21.09.2022 is sent by RPAD and the postal acknowledgement card produced at Pg. 21 of their type set evidence service of sale notice, receipts of the sale notice is not disputed by the applicants herein. Sale notice is published in both the Newspaper in “Dinamani” and in “New Indian Express” evidencing at Pg.No. 29-36.

¶118

The respondent bank have sold the property to the successful bidder one M/s. R.T. Rajeswarie, daughter of Mr. Thiruvengadam, and upon payment of the entire sale consideration amount of Rs. 2,39,06,000/against the reserve price at Rs. 2,39,56,000/-, bank have issued the sale certificate under S. 9(6) on 10.11.2022.

¶119

The respondent bank have produced the valuation report obtained from the approved valuer on 21.02.2022 which is evident at Pg. 40 of the SA book and had fixed the reserve price as per valuation report. The applicant having not obtained a valuation report independely from private valuer cannot have any grievance in respect of fixing the reserve price. The valuator has considered the value of the property, surrounding area and considered the market value, land rate and the government guidelines rate. Further it is seen that the valuator also considered the market rate and final market value at Rs.2,38,56,000 and distressed value Rs.1,78,92,000/- and realizable value at Rs. 2,01,77600/-

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

Thus the secured creditor has fixed the reserve price at Rs.2,38,56,000/- and there is no ambiguity in fixing the reserve and the property is sold more than reserve price at Rs. 2,39,06,000/- as evident from sale certificate dated 10.11.2022.

¶124

It is also a matter of record that the applicants though had challenged the 1^st sale notice and had expressed to make 20% of the outstanding amount and obtain an order of Status-Quo has failed miserably to comply with the conditional order of this Tribunal which clearly reflects the abuse of the due process of law.

¶125

However the applicant had accepted the OTS proposal have failed yet again to comply with the terms of the OTS and have filed the present SA only with an intention to thwart the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank in enforcing the security interest act for the recovery of the public money to them.

¶126

On examining of the facts, pleading and the documents produced by both the parties, there is no dispute that the applicant had borrowed the credit facilities, mortgaged properties as collateral security. Admittedly, there is no default in the repayment resulting in the classification of the account as NPA thrice. The secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act after classifying the account as NPA and have proceeded in issuing the S.13[2] demand notice, S.13[4] possession notice by following all the procedures mutinously and diligently as prescribed under the Act.

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

As the borrower, guarantor and mortgagor failed to liquidate the respondent bank has obtained S.14 order from CJM to take the possession of the property. Further the secured asset is put to sale twice, applicant sought time to repay under OTS which respondent has sanctioned. The applicants failed miserable to comply with the interim conditional order of payment granted by the Tribunal and also failed to honor the OTS terms of payment inspite of bank extending the period of payment has failed despondently and is exasperating the measures taken by the bank under the Act. Though the applicant have received all the statutory notices have not liquidated the outstanding liability due even on the date of the sale notice.

¶131

The applicant being aware of the measures have failed to point out any illegality in the measures taken by the respondent bank more specifically in support of the 2^nd sale notice 21.09.2022 scheduling the property to be sold on 28.10.2022.

¶132

On completion of the sale, a 3^rd party interest is created and the applicant having lost his right of redemption under S. 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, as per the Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act, the borrower has the right to redeem the secured asset by paying dues to the secured creditor before the sale notice is published and the right of redeem is applied before the Sale notice is published, once the dues are rendered before the publication of the notice, the secured cannot proceed with the transfer of the secured asset. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgement of Celir LLP Vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited.

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

After interpreting the amendment of Section 13(8) of the Act, and held that on failure of the opportunity in rendering the entire due before the publication of the Sale notice as per Section 13(8) of the Act, establishment of right of redemption of mortgage.

¶137

Once the Section 13(8) is executed contending the borrower didn’t have any right of redeem under Section 13(8) of the Act. Thus the right of redeem is restricted till the publication of the Sale notice under the Act.

¶138

In the instant matter as the Sale Certificate is already issued to the Successful bidder, the applicant as a borrower was established the right of redeem under Section 13(8). From the date of publication of the sale notice dated 21.09.2022 has no locus to stands in the present SA.

¶139

Resultantly, SA fails and the sale notice dated 21.09.2022 is held as valid notice and auctioning the property on 28.10.2022 is held as valid measure which does not require any interference from this Tribunal.

¶140

For the foregoing reasons, SA stands dismissed.

¶141

Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶142

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

¶143

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

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶148

Property owned by Mrs. Latchoumy. U

¶149

Puducherry Registration District, Oulgaret Sub-Registration District, Oulgaret Municipal Limits, Village No.38, Saram Revenue Village, Rainbow Nagar, 4^th Cross Street, as per document land comprised in R.S.No.282/3, 282/5, Cad. No.128 1/2, 128 2/2, (As per Document) as per Settlement Records R.S.No.282/3, Cad. No.128/ 1/2, Patta No.2097 and R.S.No.282/5/A, (As per Settlement) measuring to an extent of East to West 30ft., South to North 60 ft., Total Area- 1800 Sq.ft. Plot No.4 and East to West 30 Feet, South to North 60 Feet, Total area 1800 Sq.ft., Plot No.5, Total Measuring East to West 60 Feet, South to North 60 Feet having an total extent of 3600 Sq.ft., of plot with house, including Electricity Service connection (Policy N.05-25-02-0151), Water Service connection (No.36-31-20/559) in Door No.3.

¶150

Boundaries:

¶151

East of House in Plot No.6,

¶152

West of House in Plot No.3,

¶153

South and North of House in Plot No.27&Plot No.1.

¶154

Together with all structures attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth, both present and future and all Easamentary/Mamool Rights annexed thereto.

¶155

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶156

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	SARFAESI Application dated 25.10.2022.	A-1
2.	Loan Sanction advice issued to Mrs. Latchoumy. U. dated 28.02.2017	A-2
3.	Loan Sanction advice issued to Sabdha Consultancy dated 28.02.2017.	A-3
4.	Loan Sanction advice issued to M/s. Venkateswara Catering Services dated 28.02.2017.	A-4
5.	Loan sanction advice issued to Mrs. Latchoumy. U. dated 21.03.2017.	A-5
6.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed Doc.No. 5021 of 2017 dated 19.04.2017.	A-6
7.	Letter from applicant to the respondents bank dated 26.09.2019.	A-7

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

8.	Demand Notice 13(2) issued by responden dated 20.12.2019.	t bank	A-8
9.	Possession notice issued by respondent 12.03.2020.	dated	A-9
10.	Email sent by applicant to the respondent dated 24.03.2020.	Bank	A10
11.	Sale Notice issued by respondent 21.07.2021.	dated	A-11
12.	Legal Notice issued by Applicant Acknowledgment dated 09.08.2021.	with	A-12
13.	Order in Crl.M.P.No.4090/2021 18.08.2021.	dated	A-13
14.	Interim order in SA.No.112/2021 30.08.2021.	dated	A-14
15.	Order in SA.No.112 of 2021 dated 24.03.2	022.	A-15
16.	MIOT Hospital Discharge Summary 02.06.2022.	dated	A-16
17.	Impugned Sale Notice dated 21.09.2022.		A-17

¶161

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶162

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Page No.
1.	Counter filed by Respondent dated 07.12.2022.	R-1
2.	Approved settlement Letter of Respondent dated 19.03.2022.	R-2
3.	The Hon’ble DRT-III, Chennai Passed the order of SA No.112/2021 dated 24.03.2022.	R-3
4.	Letter of Extension of Settlement dated 14.07.2022.	R-4
5.	Letter of applicant dated 28.11.2022.	R-5
6.	Sale Notice & proof of service and the Photo Copy of sale notice affixed dated 21.09.2022.	R-6
7.	Paper Publication of Sale Notice dated 21.09.2022.	R-7
8.	Sale Certificate issued by Respondent dated 10.11.2022.	R-8
9.	Letter of Respondent for Removal of movable items date 05.12.2022.	R-9
10.	Valuation Report dated 21.02.2022.	R-10

Sd/-

SA No.433/2022 (C)

06.05.2025

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

Mr v. Udhayakumar S O Venkadasamy v Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr v. Udhayakumar S O Venkadasamy v Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Perumal

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mb Studios LLP

Idbi Bank versus Saravanan Kumar

Bharathi R versus Bharathi R

S Ganesan versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Poonam