Dismissed

K Devarajan Son of Kannan v. Dbs Bank Limited

DRT22 Jul 2025SA/558/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, dismissed a Securitization Application challenging a 14 order granting possession under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that Section 14 powers are ministerial, the applicant failed to show procedural illegality, and the order is not subject to challenge as per Section 14(3) of the Act.

What did the court decide?

The present Securitization Application (SA No. 558/2024) challenging the Section 14 order is dismissed.

K Devarajan Son of Kannan versus Dbs Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 558 of 2024

¶8

K. Devarajan S/o Kannan, No.9/10, Balakrishna Street, Menambedu, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053. …Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

M/s. DBS Bank INDIA Limited (Erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank) Chennai Regional Office, Plot No.136, 2^nd Floor, Greams Road, P.M. Towers, Chennai 600 006. Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Mr.M. Rengarajan …Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A. Periyasamy Counsel for Respondent : M/s. L Thiyagaiya

¶13

ORDER ON SA 558 /2024

¶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 has challenged the S.14 order dated 15.07.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.2906 of 2022 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

Thiruvallur and the outstanding amount due as per Section 14 order is Rs.55,19,366.44/-

¶20

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶21

3.1 The applicant is the guarantor to the loan availed by M/s Chira Caps, earlier the loan was availed from the Lakhsmi Vilas Bank which stands amalgamated to DBS Bank under the Scheme dated January 25 2020, issued by the Government of India and published under Extraordinary Part II Section 3-sub Section (i) in the Gazette of India sanctioning the Amalgamation of Lakshmi Vilas Bank into DBS Bank India Limited in term of Sub Section 7 of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949). The Scheme came into force on the 27^th January 2020. The Respondent bank in terms of the said notification initiated the actions under Securitization Act.

¶22

3.2 It is the case of the applicant that the respondent sanctioned a Open cash credit: Rs.50,00,000/-, Term Loan I: for Rs.25,00,000/- and Term Loan II for Rs.21,00,000/- which were enhanced and renewed over time.

¶23

3.3 The applicant had offered his property as security towards loan availed by the borrower M/s Chira Caps. It is contended that the borrower has maintained the account in good condition and the business of the applicant declined significantly and the proprietor started another business which also failed.

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

3.4 Subsequently the respondent bank has classified the account as NPA on 29.02.2012 as per the RBI guidelines and issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 19.01.2013 demanding an outstanding amount of Rs.91,34,019.41 to be paid within 60 days along with interest and costs. The Demand Notice was published in Two Newspapers, one in “Makkal Kural” (Tamil) and another in “Trinity Mirror” (English) which are not widely circulated as determined by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.3789 of 2017 (Padmavathy Vs. The Authorized Officer)

¶28

3.5 The Respondent bank has issued Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 03.05.2013 and took the symbolic possession of the property as the dues were not settled. The Possession Notice is not affixed on the conspicuous part of the property and published in two Newspapers, one in “Makkal Kural” (Tamil) and another in “Trinity Mirror” (English) which are not widely circulated as determined by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.3789 of 2017 (Padmavathy Vs. The Authorized Officer)

¶29

3.6 It is contended that the applicant is the guarantor not a borrower, the principal borrower has sufficient means to repay the loan and the respondent bank should not have pursued with the applicants property without exhausting remedies against the borrower. However, the applicant expressed interest in settling the dues through OTS.

¶30

3.7 The respondent bank without issuing proper Sale Notice, have sold the property and purchased it in an Auction on 11.09.2014. The applicant had challenged the Sale Certificate in SA No.17 of 2025 and approached

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

the bank along with the borrower for an OTS of Rs.1.25 crores. However the SA 17 of 2025 came to be disposed as Memo was filed by both Borrower and bank, after that borrower had deposited a part of amount in terms of OTS.

¶35

3.8 The borrower and applicant had approached the bank and requested for cancellation of the Sale Certificate issued in favor of the Respondent bank. The bank has filed an Section 14 application for taking physical possession of the property in Crl M.P.No.2906/2022 and the application was dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2023 due to absence of proper documents such as Demand notice has not published in vernacular language. The Respondent bank filed WP No.885 of 2024 which resulted in quashing Demand Notice and directed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh decision.

¶36

3.9 The Respondent bank have not classified the account as NPA as per the RBI guidelines, Demand Notice and Possession Notice were not issued properly and it is not published in leading newspapers and without complying statutory requirements Section 14 application was filed.

¶37

3.10 Further, Point No.(iX) of the Section 14 of the Act requires an affidavit from the authorized officer stating that “the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under have been complied with” which is crucial, which the Secured creditor has not detailed it in the Section 14 application.

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

3.11 The bank has not filed an Affidavit and the action initiated by the bank is contrary to the law, arbitrary and illegal. The respondent bank failed to consider the previous conduct of both the borrowers and the respondent should have granted additional time for settlement through OTS. The non-compliance of the procedures in not issuing Demand Notice nor published in two Newspapers and without giving any opportunity for settlement under OTS is illegal and contrary to law. Hence on these grounds applicant prays to set aside the Section 14 order dated 15.07.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.2906 of 2022 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur.

¶42

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶43

4.1 The respondent bank has filed a detailed counter and submitted that the respondent bank was erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas bank wherein the amalgamation of Lakshmi Vilas bank into DBS Bank India limited under the Scheme dated January 25, 2020 issued by the Government of India was published under Extraordinary Part II Section 3-sub section (i) in the Gazette of India sanctioning the Amalgamation of Lakshmi Vilas Bank into DBS Bank India Limited in term of Sub Section 7 of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, the scheme came into force on the 27^th January 2020. The respondent bank in terms of the said notification initiated the actions under Securitization Act.

¶44

4.2 M/s Chira Caps represented by its proprietor Mr.D. Suresh Babu had approached the original lender ie., Erstwhile Lakshmi vilas Bank, for an

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

financial assistance towards the working capital. The respondent bank had granted an Open Cash Credit Loan, Term Loan -1 & Term Loan-2 against the schedule property vide loan account bearing No’s: 0434639000000324, 0434785000000631 & 0434785000000920. The coborrowers for the loans availed were Mr.K.Devarajan and Mrs. D. Pushpavathy who is none other than, father and mother of the borrower

¶49

4.3 The borrower and guarantors offered their property as security and executed MODTD and also Personal Guarantee. The borrower, guarantor, mortgagor had consented6 to comply with the Terms and Conditions for regular repayments and as the borrower defaulted in the repayment and in spite of repeated requests, reminders the loan account of the applicants were not regular. The non – payment of the interest and other charges which has remained outstanding for over a period of 90 days and hence the loan account was classified as NPA on 29.02.2012 as per the RBI guidelines.

¶50

4.4 The respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 19.01.2013 calling upon the mortgagor, borrower, guarantor to repay the outstanding due of Rs.55,19,366.44/towards Open Cash Credit Account No.0434639000000324, Rs.16,78,980/- towards Term Loan – 1 Account No.0434785000000631 & Rs.19,35,673/- towards Term Loan – 2 Account No.0434785000000920. The Demand Notice was sent to borrowers, mortgagors, and guarantors by RPAD on 21.01.2013, with great care and caution, the demand notice

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

was published in two Newspapers one in “Makkal Kural” (Tamil) and another in “Trinity Mirror” (English) both dated on 24.02.2013

¶55

4.5 Despite the receipt of the Demand notice, they neglected to discharge their liabilities within the statutory period of 60 days. The respondent bank had proceeded further and issued Possession Notice dated 03.05.2013. The possession notice was sent to borrowers, guarantors, mortgagors by RPAD on 07.05.2013. The possession notice is also published in two Newspapers, one in “Makkal Kural” (Tamil) and another in “The Trininty Mirror” (English) both dated on 09.05.2013

¶56

4.6 The respondent bank has purchased the property through the Auction sale held on 11.09.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,04,36,000/- and the Sale Certificate is registered on 25.11.2014. The Term Loan -1 and Term Loan -2 accounts were closed and the outstanding balance was transferred to the Open Cash Credit Account on 27.09.2014 to adjust the entire sale amount received in the Auction. Further, the outstanding in the Open Cash Credit Account of Rs.19,47,543.55/- has been transferred to Suit filed Account bearing No.0434659000000330 on 28.05.2015

¶57

4.7 The Sale certificate was challenged by the borrower and not challenged by this Applicant in SA No.17 of 2015. The respondent bank has also filed an OA 546 of 2015 before this Hon’ble Tribunal which came to be allowed on 25.07.2016. Subsequently the borrower had approached the bank for an OTS for an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- which came to be approved vide letter dated 10.01.2017 and also requested for cancellation

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

of Sale certificate. Hence the SA was disposed by recording the settlement.

¶62

4.8 However, the borrower failed to comply with the initial condition of payment and the OTS was cancelled and there is no appeal as against the SA after the OTS was cancelled. After the cancellation of the OTS, borrower Mr.Suresh Babu Proprietor of M/s Chiracaps had given a revised OTS proposal for Rs.1.00 crore vide letter dated 04.04.2018, where in Mr.Suresh babu clearly admits the receipt of the Demand Notice dated 19.01.2013

¶63

4.9 The borrower had again approached the Respondent bank for an OTS proposal of Rs.1,25,00,000/- which was approved by the bank vide letter dated 23.09.2021, yet again the borrower failed to comply with initial conditions of OTS and the OTS proposal was cancelled. Subsequently, the bank has filed a Section 14 application before the Learned CJM, Tiruvallur for taking physical possession of the property. The application was listed for hearing on many dates and finally the case was dismissed as “Further Action Dropped” by Learned CJM, Tiruvallur vide order dated 17.11.2013 in Crl.M.P. No.2906 of 2022 stating that the bank failed to produce relevant documents, even though documents were filed.

¶64

4.10 Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.11.2023 passed by Hon’ble CJM, Tiruvallur. Bank had preferred an Writ Petition in W.P.No.885 of 2024 in which the borrowers, guarantors has entered appearance and

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

failed to file their counter despite the opportunities given and failed to raise objections and the Writ Petition was disposed vide order dated 27.03.2024. The relevant portion of the order is as:

¶69

“The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated to the Learned CJM for a decision on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, afresh”

¶70

4.11 The Learned CJM, Tiruvallur consideredthe S.14 application as fresh which came to be allowed on 15.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2906 of 2022. One Mrs. Rohini claims to be a tenant, by way of a Unregistered Lease Agreement challenged the Section 14 order dated 15.07.2024 vide SA No.505 of 2024 where in a Status Quo was granted by this Hon’ble Tribunal from 31.07.2024 till 01.10.2024 to vacate and handover the physical possession. Till date, the tenant has not handed over the property to the respondent bank

¶71

4.12 The applicant has challenged the Section 14 order dated 15.07.2024 in SA No.558 of 2024 and Status quo was granted on 05.09.2024 and the conditional order was given on residual amount for deducting outstanding dues. The applicant failed to comply with the 1^st conditional payment within the stipulated time fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. The respondent came to know about this order only by the applicant’s letter dated 09.09.2024 which was served on 12.09.2024

¶72

4.13 The applicant failed to make 2^nd conditional payment and due to non-compliance of both the conditional orders and the default caused, the

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

Interim Stay became vacated. The respondent bank took steps to coordinate with Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property and proceeded with the same. Subsequently the applicant sent a DD dated 02.11.2024 for the total conditional payment of Rs.11,04,000/which was sent to Respondent through Registered post and received on 04.11.2024 for extension of time limit and also made application before this Hon’ble Tribunal for extension of Status quo order.

¶77

4.14 Subsequently, yet another one M/s Sathish Kumar claiming to be a tenant challenging the order dated 15.07.2024 and obtained a Status quo order granted till 30.12.2024 and also filed an Affidavit after serving copies to the respondent bank. Aggrieved by the proceedings of this Hon’ble Tribunal, applicant had approached the Hon’ble Madras High Court vide W.P.No.39257 of 2024 and the office of the Presiding officer was vacant, the Hon’ble Madras High Court was pleased to pass Status quo till the disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶78

“The petitioner is directed to present the Demand Draft within two days, i.e., on or before 23.12.2024 before the Bank and the respondent/bank is directed to accept the Demand Draft if the petitioner hand over the same. Till such time this writ petition is decided, there shall be an order of status quo”. Post this matter after three weeks.

¶79

4.15 The Auction sale was held in the year 2014 and the borrowers, mortgagors, guarantors have not handed over the physical possession of

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

the property and guarantor is in the enjoyment of the property along with the borrower and both the tenants are claiming to be in same property which clearly shows that, all of them are conspired together. Though all the actions initiated by the respondent bank is as per the Acts and Rules. The applicant has waived his right and failed to challenge the Section 13(2) Demand Notice, classification of account as NPA, Section 13(4) Possession Notice, sale proceedings. In view of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment vide citation (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 221.

¶84

4.16 The respondent bank denies the allegation and facts made in the Application, that the application is pertaining to the address of the parties and pertaining to jurisdiction and pertaining to limitation, in these aspects does not required to be traversed by this Respondent bank.

¶85

4.17 The allegation mentioned in Para V(3), (10), (14), and ground (d) are false, as the loan account of the applicant was irregular in repayments and declared as NPA on 29.02.2012 as per the RBI guidelines. The allegations raised in Para V(4), (12) and ground (f) are false, as the Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 19.01.2013 was served to the Borrowers, guarantors, mortgagors and the Demand notice is also published in two Newspapers one in “Makkal Kural” (Tamil) and “The Trinity Mirror” (English) both dated on 24.02.2013.

¶86

4.18 The allegations mentioned in Para V(5), (12), ground (b), (e) and

¶87

(g) are false, as the Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 03.05.2013 was issued after 60 days from the date of Demand Notice and the

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

Possession notice is also served to the borrowers, guarantors, mortgagors and the Possession notice is also published in two Newspapers, one in “Makkal Kural” (Tamil) and another in “The Trinity Mirror” both dated on 09.05.2013. The allegations raised in Para V(6) to (8) and in grounds (b), (c), (h) to (n) are false and baseless, as the Respondent bank had purchased the Schedule mentioned property through Auction sale held on 11.09.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,04,36,000.00/-

¶92

4.19 It is submitted that the respondent has rightly taken legal action against the applicant, without any bias manner, under the Act and Rules made there under. The Respondent vehemently denies the Main relief and also Interim relief as sought by the applicant and prays for dismissal of the present SA.

¶93

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

¶94

5.1 The applicant is the guarantors to the loan availed by M/s Chira Caps represented by its proprietor Mr. D. Suresh Babu who had availed the loans from Lakshmi Vilas Bank which is amalgamated as DBS Bank vide RBI notification dated 25.11.2020 which is produced at Page No.86 of the typed set. There is no dispute by the applicant for having stood as guarantor and mortgaged the property favoring the respondent bank towards the credit facilities availed by M/s Chira Caps to the original lender Lakshmi Vilas Bank which is amalgamated as DBS Bank.

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

5.2 Due to default in the repayment, the loan account was classified as NPAon 29.02.2012 as per the RBI guidelines. After classification of the account as NPA, respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 19.01.2013 which is sent to the borrower M/s Chira caps represented by its proprietor Mr. D. Suresh Babu, Smt. D. Pushpavathy guarantor and Shri. K. Devarajan guarantor. The demand notice clearly reflects the detailsthe name of the borrower and the guarantor, nature of the credit facilities availed, description of the mortgaged property, hypothecation of the asset and the total outstanding due of Rs.91,34,019.41/- to be repaid with further interest, costs and other charges.

¶99

5.3 Further the applicant has defaulted in repayment with respect to LPVL loan which resulted in classifying the loan account as NPA on 29.02.2012 in accordance with RBI guidelines, and demanding an outstanding amount of Rs.2,65,888.54/-

¶100

5.4 It is seen that the Demand notice was also sent through RPAD with Acknowledgement Due. The Demand notice was received by Mrs. D. Pushpavathy and Mr. K. Devarajan and the Demand notice is sent to Mr. D. Suresh Babu returned unserved. Hence the respondent bank published the contents of the Demand notice in two Newspapers, one in “The Trinity Mirror” (English) and “Makkal Kural” (Tamil) both dated on 24.02.2013.

¶101

5.5 It is seen that the borrower and the guarantors/mortgagors did not repay the outstanding amount as demanded in the Demand Notice nor

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

raised any objections as required under Section 13(3A) of the Act, nor repaid the entire amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of Demand Notice. Hence bank has proceeded further and issued Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 03.05.2013 which is also sent through RPAD and the borrower M/s Chira Caps have received the Possession notice. The Possession notice is affixed on the property and also published in two Newspapers, one in “The Trinity Mirror” (English) and another in “Makkal Kural” (Tamil) both dated on 09.05.2013 as mandated under the Acts and Rules.

¶106

5.6 However, the applicant didn’t liquidate the liability, on the other hand have expressed to settle the liability under OTS vide letter dated 20.10.2016. It is seen from the OTS proposal that the borrower admitted the availing of the credit facilities, default in the repayment, and the bank have filed an OA and have admitted that the Sale Certificate is issued and registered vide Doc.No.16165 of 2014 at Sub registrar, Ambattur. Applicant had offered to make an payment of Rs.1,25,00,000/- as full and final settlement and relieve from all the legal proceedings and also cancel the Sale certificate, which is accepted by the bank.

¶107

5.7 Further, the applicant vide letter dated 04.04.2018 also gave issued revised OTS proposal of applicant, admitting the credit facilities availed, default in repayment and the outstanding amount due in all the loan accounts and also filed an SA No.17/2015 and negotiated to sell the property for Rs.1.25 crores to Mr. Jayashree Nandakumar who had parked

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

his funds in terms of fixed deposit of Rs.1,18,00,000/- in Ambattur Branch.

¶112

5.8 Further SA is filed impugning the Section 14 order dated 15.07.2024, The application filed before learned CJM, Tiruvallur came to be dismissed as “Further Action Dropped” vide order dated 17.11.2023 as the respondent failed to produce the relevant documents, even though all the documents were filed. It is seen from records aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Tiruvallur, Respondent bank has preferred an W.P. No.885 of 2024 in which the borrower and guarantors failed to file their counter despite several opportunities given, W.P No.885 of 2024 came to be disposed on 27.03.2024 relegated the matter to Learned CJM for a decision on the Section 14 application.

¶113

5.9 The Ld. CJM, Tiruvallur considered afresh Section 14 application which came to be allowed on 15.07.2024. The respondent contends that Mrs.R.Rohini who claims to be a tenant has filed an SA No.505 of 2024 and SA No.558 of 2024 wherein a status quo was granted by this Hon’ble Tribunal on 05.09.2024. Subsequently, Sathish kumar who claims to be a tenant had filed an SA and status quo was granted till 30.12.2024 by this Hon’ble Tribunal on 28.11.2024.

¶114

5.10 The applicant had also approached the Hon’ble High court in W.P.No.39257 of 2024 and the Writ Petition came to be dismissed with a direction to the Hon’ble Tribunal to decide the matter. Though the applicant has challenged the Section 14 order dated 15.07.2024 in

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

Crl.M.P.No.2906 of 2022 passed by Learned CJM, Thiruvallur, has not pointed out any illegalities in the Section 14 application or in the Section 14 order passed by the Learned CJM, Thiruvallur.

¶119

5.11 It is a matter on record that the applicant being the guarantor is in receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 19.10.2013 which is evident from Acknowledgement cards produced by the bank at Page No.69 of their typed set and the Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 03.05.2013 is received by M/s Chira Caps. In fact the borrower and guarantors were in receipt of the statutory notices, have not come forward to liquidate the entire outstanding amount to the respondent bank. Further the Sale notice is not challenged by either borrower nor guarantor even as on today.

¶120

5.12 It is also a matter on record that the borrower nor guarantor though made an attempt to settle the outstanding amount under OTS which was granted by the respondent bank, it is an admitted fact that the applicant failed to comply with OTS proposal, hence the OTS proposal came to be cancelled and the sale was successfully held for a sum of Rs.1,04,36,000/-

¶121

5.13 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

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind.

¶126

5.14 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra , held thatCourt 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 judgement is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgement dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC

¶127

(P) Ltd. as under:

¶128

“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 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”.

¶129

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

¶130

Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. , held that

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

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.”

¶135

5.16 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.

¶136

5.17 Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act statuses that no action taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (or any officer authorized by them) under Section 14 can be challenged in court or before any other authority. Thus the provision ensures that the action taken under Section 14 is final and not subject to further review. Therefore, it is held that the Section 14 order passed by the Ld. CJM is after due consideration the compliance of the provisions of the Section 14 [i-ix] is only an execution order where no adjudication is required.

¶137

5.18Therefore the Tribunal is not persuaded to interfere in the S.14 Order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P No.2906/2022 and the same is held as lawful order.

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

Resultantly the present SA stands dismissed. Interim Order

¶142

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

¶143

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

¶144

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 22^nd day of July, 2025)

¶145

ANNEXURES

¶146

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶147

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Grounds of SA 06.08.2024	A-1
2.	Copy of Demand Notice 19.01.2013	A-2
3.	Demand Notice paper Publication Vernacular in Makkal Kural (Tamil) 24.02.2013	A-3
4.	Demand Notice Paper Publication Vernacular in Trinity Mirror (English) 24.02.2013	A-4
5.	Copy of Possession Notice 03.05.2013	A-5
6.	Copy of Possession Notice paper publication Vernacular in Makkal Kural (Tamil) and Trinity Mirror (English) 09.05.2013	A-6
7.	Copy of Letter for OTS acceptance 10.01.2017	A-7
8.	Copy of Proceedings in SA No.17 of 2015 01.02.2017	A-8
9.	Copy of letter from Respondent 23.09.2021	A-9
10.	Letter from the Borrower to Respondent bank 14.10.2022	A-10
11.	Letter from the Borrower to Respondent bank 17.10.2022	A-11
12.	Letter from Respondent to Borrower 18.11.2022	A-12
13.	Copy of Sec.14 Application in Crl.M.P.2906 of 2022 21.02.2022	A-13
14.	Copy of order in Crl.Mp No.2906 of 2022	A-14

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

	17.11.2023
15.	Copy of order in WP No.885 of 2024 27.03.2024	A-15
16.	Copy of Notice affixed by the Advocate Commissioner in the premises 25.07.2024	A-16
17.	FD receipt for Rs.20,00,000/-09.08.2024	A-17
18.	Impugned order in Crl.Mp No.2906 of 2022	A-18
19.	Vakalath 06.08.2024	A-19

¶152

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶153

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Sale deed bearing N0.7206/2003 in favour of the applicant and Mr.D.Suresh Babu 01.12.2003	R-1
2.	Loan Sanction Letter 21.06.2010	R-2
3.	Loan Sanction Letter 23.10.2010	R-3
4.	Loan Sanction Letter 08.09.2011	R-4
5.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds 29.07.2010	R-5
6.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds 16.09.2010	R-6
7.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds 23.10.2010	R-7
8.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds 08.09.2011	R-8
9.	Demand Notice U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act along with Acknowledgement Cards 19.01.2013	R-9
10.	Paper Publication of Demand Notice U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. 24.02.2013	R-10
11.	Possession Notice U/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act along with Acknowledgement 03.05.2013	R-11
12.	Photos of Possession Notice U/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act 03.05.2013	R-12
13.	Paper Publication of Possession Notice U/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act 09.05.2013	R-13
14.	OTS Proposal Letter given by the borrower Suresh Babu Proprietor of M/s. Chiracaps 20.10.2016	R-14
15.	Revised OTS Proposal Letter sent by the borrower Mr.Suresh Babu Proprietor of M/s Chiracaps to Respondent 04.04.2018	R-15
16.	RBI Notification for Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited Amalgamation with DBS Bank Limited 25.11.2020	R-16
17.	Order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P.No.39257 of 2024 21.12.2024	R-17

SA No.558/2024

22.07.2025

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶158

All that piece and parcel of Land (in Triangula shape) of an extent of A0.07 cent (3052 Sq.ft) out of A0.08 cent together with old RCC terraced House, Well and M.E.S connection situated in Door No.9/10, Balakrishna Street, Menambedu Village, Ambattur Municipality, Ambattur Tk., Thiruvallur District, ambattur Registration District, Chennai – 600 053 comprised in Wet S.No.137/1, and Patta No.234 as per Patta S.No.137/1A, measuring 107 feet 77 feet and 88 feet respectively on three sides in all 3052 sq.ft., approximately and bounded as follows:

¶159

North by: Balakrishna Street.,

¶160

South by: Land sold by Ramakrishna Naidu and others.,

¶161

West by: Land sold by Ramakrishna and others and Mrs.Alamelu Ammal

¶162

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

K Devarajan Son of Kannan v. Dbs Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Devarajan Son of Kannan v. Dbs 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

State Bank of India versus Illamaran

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sivaprakash

Bank of Baroda versus Ayyanar Constructions

Gowri R versus Icici Bank Limited

Ms Aiswariam Cars rep by Proprietor Mr Nandan v versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Raveendran