Allowed

Poovai Amman Avency and Others v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT18 Dec 2025SA/531/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, the DRT was asked to receive specific documents relevant to challenging a property auction. The Tribunal allowed the application, noting that while delay exists, it is not a bar if the documents aid adjudication and no serious prejudice is shown to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; documents are permitted to be received on file subject to proof and relevance.

Poovai Amman Avency and Others versus City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 18^th day of December, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

IA No.1928 of 2025 in

¶5

SA No.531 of 2023

¶6

M/s Poovai Amman Agency No.87, East Street Kongrayapalayam, Nagalur (Post) Villupuram District - 606 203

¶7

Also at

¶8

M/s Poovai Amman Agency No.4, Panchayat Union Complex

¶9

Dugam Road, Kallakurichi – 606 202

¶10

S. Selvaraj Son of Saranga Gounder No.89/1, Main Road, Kongrayapalayam

¶11

Nagalur (Post), Villupuram District – 606 203

¶12

Mrs. S. Chellammal Wife of Selvaraj No.89/1, Main Road, Kongrayapalayam Nagalur (Post), Villupuram District – 606 203

¶13

S. Karthikeyan S/o Selvaraj No.89/1, Main Road, Kongrayapalayam Nagalur (Post), Villupuram District – 606 203

¶14

S. Prakash S/o Selvaraj No.89/1, Main Road, Kongrayapalayam Nagalur (Post), Villupuram District – 606 203 …Petitioners / Applicants

¶15

Versus

¶16

¶17

The Authorised Officer

¶18

City Union Bank Limited Credit Recovery and Management Department Administrative Office No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar

¶19

Kumbakonam – 612 115

¶20

Rajeshkumar

¶21

Son of Nagarajan 64/10-A, 5^th Street, Ezhil Nagar Vazhappadi, Salem – 636 115

¶22

Thakshnamoorthi

¶23

Son of Srinivasan No.29/1, Gramachavadi Street Kallakurichi – 606 202

¶24

4, Manoharan

¶25

S/o Chinnasamy No.63/10, Panaiyar Subbrayan Street Kannankurichi, Salem – 636 009

¶26

Mrs. Thilagamai D/o Kandasamy No.6/367C, Goodluck Nagar Mummudy, Thalaivasal Salem – 636 112

¶27

Mrs. Kalpana No.507/10, New Arun Nagar Near Arunagiri Vidyalaya School Alagapuram, Periyapudu Salem – 636 016 …Respondents / Respondents

¶28

ORDERS

¶29

This interlocutory application is filed praying to receive the documents listed on file.

¶30

¶31

Averments in the application

¶32

The above SA is filed challenging the sale held on 16.10.2023 in respect of

¶33

the applicants’ properties. It is stated that the respondent has issued the sale notice dated 25.9.2023 fixing the reserve price of the mortgaged properties viz., Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ far too below the market value based on the valuation report dated 31.12.2021. It is also stated that the present market price of the Schedule ‘A’ property is Rs. 3 crores, whereas the reserve price fixed is only Rs.60 lakhs. It is further stated that the Schedule ‘B’ property is an agricultural land along with a Well and the respondent fixed the reserve price as Rs.65 lakhs which much lower than the market value.

¶34

It is stated that the auction purchasers Respondents 3 to 6 have converted the Schedule ‘B’ property as 44 house sites and had also obtained the approval. It is also stated that the applicants came to know that the auction purchasers sold 19 plots to various person under registered sale deeds and as per the sale deeds the sale consideration for each plot is more than Rs.6,50,000/-. It is further stated that the applicants have filed this application for receiving the registered sale deeds and encumbrance certificates for better adjudication of the above SA. It is stated that unless these documents are received on file the applicants will be put to serious hardship and loss, on the other hand, no hardship will be caused to the respondent bank and prayed for receiving them on file.

¶35

¶36

Counter filed by the 1^st Respondent

¶37

The 1^st respondent filed its counter alleging that the instant application is a last ditch attempt made by the petitioners to thwart the proceedings taken by this respondent and has no merits or legs to stand. The application is taken at a very belated stage only to delay the application from being decided by this Tribunal and deserves to be dismissed in limine.

¶38

The petitioner is trying to challenge the instant sale which was conducted on 16.10.2023 by introducing documents at a much belated stage which are totally irrelevant to the facts on hand. It is a matter of admission on the part of the petitioner himself that the property sold has been developed by the auction purchasers and thereafter sold by them under various sale deeds. That the purchasers had developed the land by getting the relevant approvals and laying roads itself would contribute to the price of the land getting increased and would also contain the expenses undertaken by the purchasers to develop the land is a matter oflogic and common sense and the same cannot be construed to the value of the land which was brought for auction by the bank especially when the petitioners miserably failed to pay off their dues. The petitioner is only trying to improve his case belatedly and the same cannot be entertained at this stage.

¶39

This respondents places reliance on two judgments of the Hon’ble Madras

¶40

High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court has clearly stated that this Tribunal

¶41

¶42

can only adjudicate on the measures taken by the authorized officer in an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and has further held that when valuation is obtained from a valuer properly registered under the Wealth Tax Act, the same cannot be found fault with. The valuation reports obtained by the bank having satisfied the said criteria, the above application is devoid of merits and have no legs to stand and deserve to be dismissed.

¶43

Version of Respondents 2 to 6

¶44

These respondents vehemently opposes for allowing the application and prayed for dismissing the same. Respondents 3 to 6 submitted that the written argument has already been filed in the main SA.

¶45

Point for consideration

¶46

This Tribunal having heard the rival submissions and after perusing the

¶47

records is of the view that the only point that arise for consideration is:

¶48

Whether the instant application is liable to be allowed?

¶49

Answers to the point for consideration

¶50

The scope of adjudication under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act undoubtedly pertains to examining the legality and validity of the measures taken

¶51

by the secured creditor. However, while considering the validity of the sale, the

¶52

¶53

adequacy of price and fairness of the auction process are also relevant aspects, particularly when allegations of gross undervaluation are raised.

¶54

The applicants seek only to receive certain documents on file and not, at this stage, any final relief based on those documents. Whether the subsequent sale deeds executed by the auction purchasers can be relied upon to determine the alleged undervaluation is a matter to be considered at the time of final adjudication of the S.A. Mere receiving of documents on record does not, by itself, cause prejudice to the respondents.

¶55

It is well settled that procedural applications intended to place material on record for effective adjudication should ordinarily be allowed, unless they are vexatious or wholly irrelevant. At this stage, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the documents sought to be produced may have a bearing on the issue raised by the applicants and their admissibility and evidentiary value can be examined at the time of final disposal.

¶56

The contention of the respondents that the application is filed belatedly is noted. However, delay by itself is not a sufficient ground to reject a prayer for receiving documents, especially when no serious prejudice is shown to be caused to the respondents.

¶57

In view of the above, in the interest of justice and equity, and to ensure effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved, this Tribunal is of the

¶58

¶59

considered view that the prayer for receiving the documents deserves to be allowed. Mere reception of the documents on file does not, by itself, cause prejudice to the respondents. At the same time, to balance equities, liberty is granted to the respondents to file their objections, or additional pleadings, if any, to the documents now received, and to raise all contentions regarding their

¶60

relevance, admissibility, and evidentiary value at the time of final hearing.

¶61

14. In the result, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

The interlocutory application is allowed. The documents mentioned in the application are permitted to be received on file, subject to proof and relevance, which shall be considered at the time of final disposal of the Securitisation Application. No order as to costs.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶66

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 18^th day of December, 2025)

¶67

Poovai Amman Avency and Others v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poovai Amman Avency and Others v. City Union Bank Limited

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s M.G.A. Mining Company

Dbs Bank India Ltd., versus M/s Star Roofing Sheets

State Bank of India, Sarb versus K. Ramesh Kumar

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) versus Mr. N. Srinivasan

Venus Exports versus Bank of Baroda

M Lakshmi Priya versus Bank of Baroda