Dismissed

Mr Madhankumar Ramalingam v. Federal Bank

DRT7 Oct 2025SA/487/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for possession of mortgaged property. The court found that the secured creditor strictly followed the procedural requirements of the SARFAESI Act and Security Interest Enforcement Rules, validating the demand and possession notices.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application (SA) is dismissed; the Sec. 13(2) demand notice and Sec. 13(4) possession notice are held valid.

Mr Madhankumar Ramalingam versus Federal Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

SA No.487/2023

07.10.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 07^th day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 487 of 2023

¶8

Mr. Madhankumar Ramalingam, Son of Ramalingam, No.144, Thammanan Road, Arisipalayam, Salem -636 009. ….Applicant -Vs-

¶9

The Authorised Officer, Federal Bank Ltd., LCRD Chennai Division, No.27, 5^th Floor, Akshaya Shanthi, Opp to Head Post Officer, Anna Salai, Chennai -600 002. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. M. Abubakar Counsel for respondent : M/s. S. Sathiyanarayanan

¶12

ORDER ON SA 487/2023

¶13

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 18.08.2023 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].

¶14

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Possession Notice dated 07.07.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession Notice is Rs.60,77,430/-

SA No.487/2023

07.10.2025

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶19

The applicant is the borrower who had availed a Mortgage Loan of Rs.1,80,00,000/- in the year 2019, Housing Loan of Rs.50 Lakhs in the year 2020 and another Personal Loan for a sum of Rs.4,82,006/- in the year 2018 and another Personal Loan of Rs.2,49,996/- in the year 2020.

¶20

The applicant have paid dues every month as per the agreement and also created equitable mortgage in respect of the property for Housing Loan only and had executed all necessary documents. The payments made by the applicant is up to June 2022 is well within time. However, due to Covid19 the applicant faced serious struggle in day today life, which resulted in the classification of the account as NPA.

¶21

The respondent have hurriedly issued the demand notice dated 03.09.2022 calling upon the borrower and the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.2,49,67,110.77/-. The applicant approached for one time settlement, which was orally accepted but did not give any time for the applicant to clear the dues. However, the respondent have issued the S.13(4) possession notice dated 07.07.2023 and the respondent made take a forcible possession and sell the property.

¶22

It is alleged that the bank have not appropriated the amount paid the applicant and have charged interest and penal interest against the RBI guidelines and no proper credit is given to the loan account. Without issuing the demand notice, possession notice is contrary to law. Hence the applicant has filed the present SA contenting that there is no S.13(2) notice

SA No.487/2023

07.10.2025

prior to the issuance of possession notice and the possession notice is not issued properly, bank has not followed the procedures, possession notice does not contain proper description identification of the property. The bank has failed to satisfy the statuary requirement to deliver the possession notice and, hence prays to set aside the possession notice dated 07.07.2023.

¶27

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶28

The bank has filed the counter inter alia denying all the allegations made by the applicant in the present SA. The applicant along with his wife had availed four facilities which are as under:

¶29

i. Mortgage Loan for as sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- on 21.12.2019.

¶30

ii. Personal Loan for a sum of Rs.4,82,006/- on 21.12.2019. The applicant had executed a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 24.12.2019 vide Document No.2691/2019 with SRO, Joint III Salem West in favour of the Respondent Bank towards security of the further credit facilities availed. iii. Housing Loan for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on 31.07.2020. iv. Personal loan for a sum of Rs.2,49,996/- on 04.08.2020.

¶31

The applicant and his wife-Mrs. Anitha had executed a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 25.08.2020 which is registered has Document No.7174/2020 before SRO, Thiruporur.

¶32

The applicant/borrowers were irregular in the repayment, hence the account was classified as NPA on 04.07.2022 as per the RBI guidelines. Subsequently, the bank have issued the S.13(2) demand notice dated 03.09.2022 and the notice sent to the applicant returned with an

SA No.487/2023

07.10.2025

endorsement as “No Such Person” and “Door Locked” on 12.09.2022. Hence the bank have affixed the Sec.13(2) demand notice on the premises on 01.11.2022 and also demand notice was duly published in English as well as in Tamil Daily “Times of India” and “Hindu Tamil” on 03.11.2022 as per Rule 3(1) of the security interest rules.

¶37

In spite sufficient opportunity, borrower and the guarantor did not clear the outstanding amount, hence the bank have issued the possession notice dated 07.07.2023 and took symbolic possession of the property. The possession notice was duly received by the applicant on 15.07.2023, in one of their addresses, the possession notice is affixed on the property on 07.07.2023. The possession notice was also duly published in English as well as Tamil Daily “New Indian Express” and “Dinamani” on 11.07.2023 as per Rule 8(2) of the security interest rules.

¶38

Countering the averment made in the para it is submitted that the applicant was irregular in the repayment, hence the loan was classified as NPA on 04.07.2022 as per the RBI guidelines followed by directions of the Sec.13(2) demand notice on 03.09.2022.

¶39

The applicant did not approached the bank for any OTS settlement and there was no oral acceptance has contented by the applicant and allegations are false and misleading.

¶40

The applicant had mortgage the property and security for the housing loan, personal loan facility and also executed MODT dated 25.08.2020 registered as Document No.7174/2020 with SRO, Thiruporur.

SA No.487/2023

07.10.2025

After classifying the account as NPA, the demand one notice was issued after two months. Hence the opportunity was given for the applicant to repay the loan which is not complied with, hence bank has proceeded in issuing the Sec.13(4) possession notice. The possession notice was duly published in English as well as in Tamil Daily “New Indian Express” and “Dinamani” on 11.07.2023 as per Rule 8(1) & (2) of the security interest rules. As the bank has followed all the procedures prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶45

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

¶46

The records reflects that the applicant had availed Term Loan (Property Power) of Rs.1,80,00,000/- vide A/c. No.15217600000700, and Term Loan (Federal Housing Loan) of Rs.50,00,000/vide A/c.No.15217300000281, and Term Loan (Asset Guard) of Rs.4,82,006/vide A/c.No.15217600000692, and Term Loan (Asset Guard) of Rs.2,49,996/- vide A/c.No.15217600000940, and had mortgaged the flat bearing No.6G in the Sixth Floor as security.

¶47

The applicant/borrowers were irregular in the repayment, hence the account was classified as NPA on 04.07.2022 as per the RBI guidelines. Subsequently, the bank have issued the S.13(2) demand notice dated 03.09.2022 and the notice sent to the applicant returned with an endorsement as “No Such Person” and “Door Locked” on 12.09.2022. Hence the bank have affixed the Sec.13(2) demand notice in the premises on 01.11.2022 and also published in English as well as in Tamil Daily

SA No.487/2023

07.10.2025

“Times of India” and “Hindu Tamil” on 03.11.2022 as per Rule 3(1) of the security interest rules.

¶52

In spite sufficient opportunity the borrower and the guarantor did not clear the outstanding amount, hence the bank have issued the possession notice dated 07.07.2023 and took symbolic possession of the property. The possession notice was duly received by the applicant on 15.07.2023, in one of their addresses, the possession notice is affixed on the property on 07.07.2023. The possession notice was also duly published in English as well as Tamil Daily “New Indian Express” and “Dinamani” on 11.07.2023 as per Rule 8(2) of the security interest rules.

¶53

Though the applicant have challenged the Sec.13(4) possession notice have not pointed out any illegalities in the measure taken by the bank in enforcing the security available to them. On the other hand the respondent bank have established the procedures as contemplated under the Act in enforcing the security with supporting documents as required under the Act.

¶54

Hence it is concluded that the Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 03.09.2022 and Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 07.07.2023 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

¶55

For the forgoing reasons, the present SA is only to be dismissed. Accordingly the SA stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands

SA No.487/2023

07.10.2025

vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order

¶60

as to cost. Sd/-

¶61

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

¶62

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 07^th day of October, 2025)

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶65

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Possession Notice dated 07.07.2023.	A-1

¶66

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶67

Sl. No.	Descrip	tion of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Demand Notice un 03.09.2022.	der section 13(2) Notice dated	R-1
2.	Postal Receipt/A Cover dated 12.0	cknowledgment card/Return 9.2022.	R-2
3.	Demand Notice affixture Photo da	under section 13(2) Notice ted 01.11.2022.	R-3
4.	News Paper 03.11.2022.	Publication-English dated	R-4
5.	News Paper Public	ation-Tamil dated 03.11.2022.	R-5
6.	Possession Notic dated 07.07.2023	e under section 13(4) Notice .	R-6
7.	Postal Receipt/A Cover dated 15.0	cknowledgment card/Return 7.2023.	R-7
8.	Possession affixtu	re Photo dated 07.07.2023.	R-8
9.	News Paper 11.07.2023.	Publication-English dated	R-9
10.	News Paper Public	ation-Tamil dated 11.07.2023.	R-10

¶68

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶69

All that piece and parcel of landed property with Residential Flat bearing No.6G, in the Sixth Floor at the residential project namely “VGN COASTA” admeasuring super build up area of 1539 sq.ft., with 425 Sq.ft., of UDS out of 94 cents comprised in Survey No.46/2A1A1, 96 cents

SA No.487/2023

07.10.2025

comprised Survey No.46/2A1A2, and 27 cents comprised in survey No.46/2A2A, totaling to an extent of Acres 2.17 cents or thereabouts as per Patta No.966, and after gifting area towards OSR/Link roads/street alignment/road widening/road use etc., as may be applicable to appropriate authorities, the balance total extent of acres 1.802 cents equivalent to about 78.520 sq.ft., situate at “VGN COASTA” Muttukadu Village, Thiruporur Taluk (Previously Chengalpattu Taluk), Kanchipuram District within the Registration District of Chengalpattu and Sub Registration District of Thiruporur.

¶74

Boundaries;

¶75

North by Survey No.46/1A5, South by-Access Road to O.S.R. East by-East Coast Road West by- O.S.R. and Survey No.47.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Mr Madhankumar Ramalingam v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Madhankumar Ramalingam v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Sriram versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Santhiya

Ganesan versus Five Star Business Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus S. Bhuvaneshwari

Klv Rama Rao versus Indian Overseas Bank

G Mahalakshmi versus Union Bank of India