Dismissed

Bakthavachalam Alias K Bakthavatchalam v. Dhani Loans and Services Limited

DRT16 Sept 2025SA/569/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Securitization Application challenging a Sale Notice, the Tribunal held that the application has become infructuous because the auction fixed in the notice failed to materialize, rendering the proceedings moot.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application stands dismissed as it became infructuous due to the failure of the auction; interim orders vary

Bakthavachalam Alias K Bakthavatchalam versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 569 of 2023

¶8

Bakthavatchalam Alias K. Bakthavatchalam, Old No.3, New No.5, 4^th Avenue, Dr. Ambedkar Road (Ashok Nagar Main Road), Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

¶9

Prabavathi D,

¶10

Old No.3, New No.5, 4^th Avenue, Dr. Ambedkar Road (Ashok Nagar Main Road), Kodambakkam, Chenna – 600 024. ….Applicants

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

The Authorised Officer, Dhani Loans and Services (formerly India Bulls Consumer Finance Limited and IVL Finance Limited), Reg. Office: 1/1E, First Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008.

¶13

Sri Mookambika Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietrix Sakunthala Alias B Sakunthala, Old No.3, New No.5, 4^th Avenue, Dr. Ambedkar Road (Ashok Nagar Main Road), NR Indian Oil Bulk,

¶14

Chennai – 600 024. ….Respondents

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Antony. L.X Selvam Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s. T. Sai Krishnan

¶17

ORDER ON SA 569/2023

¶18

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’)

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

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

¶23

The applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Sale Notice dated 29.09.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent financial institution fixing the sale on 06.11.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.4,07,17,950/-.

¶24

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶25

3.1 It is the case of the applicants that the first applicant created mortgage in respect of the schedule mentioned property for the credit facilities Loan Account No.HILAVLC00413782 extended to M/s Sri Mookambika Enterprises, the second respondent herein to the tune of Rs.5,05,00,000/- on 14.02.2018. The second respondent, is represented by its Proprietrix, B. Sakunthala, who is none other than wife of applicant.

¶26

3.2 It is submitted by the applicants that second applicant vide Loan account No.HILAVC00428498 had availed a separate loan from the first respondent and for the said loan, the first and the second applicants stood and guarantors and second applicant had mortgaged her immovable property morefully described in SA schedule.

¶27

3.3 It is further submitted that the second respondent is running a Petrol Pump and for the said business, she borrowed money from first respondent and failed to repay the same as per the terms of contract. It is further submitted that there has been certain disputes between the

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

applicant and the second respondent in respect of the property in which the fuel filing station is situated and the applicant had filed a Writ Petition No.18983 of 2020 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras, which has been referred to meditation and pending.

¶32

3.3 It is the further case of the applicant that though the second respondent’s business is doing well, they have voluntarily and intentionally defaulted, with an ulterior motive, so that 1^st respondent would initiate action against applicant’s property. Owing to the default, the Authorised Officer of the 1^st respondent issued Demand Notice dated 30.03.2021 for the Loan Account No. HILAVLC00413782, claiming a sum of Rs.6,25,51,856.80p, followed by the subject impugned Possession Notice dated 11.08.2021, which was challenged before DRT-II, Chennai since transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TSA No.310 of 2023.

¶33

3.4 It is further submitted that in the Loan Account No. HILAVLC00413782, there was a default and the 1^st respondent financial institution issued Demand Notice dated 18.06.2021, claiming a sum of Rs.1,17,48,687/- due as on 29.05.2021, followed by the Possession Notice dated 05.01.2022, which was challenged before DRT-II, Chennai since transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TSA No.329 of 2023 and the said TSA came to be dismissed on 21.08.2025.

¶34

3.5 It is submitted that in the meantime, the applicants identified a buyer for one of the property and a Tripartite Agreement dated 03.06.2022 was entered into between the applicants, 1^st respondent and

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

Mr. Mohamed Anwardeen for a sum of Rs.5.5 crores. As 1^st respondent was not sure whether the third party would complete the transaction, it was insisted that agreement was only for realization of part loan amount but it was orally assured by 1^st respondent that on realization of Rs.5.5 crores, they would close the loan account No. HILAVLC00413782 and give a loan closure letter but retain the other document as the first applicant stood as guarantor for the second loan viz., Loan account No.HILAVLC00428498. As agreed on payment of Rs.5.5 crores, the 1^st respondent issued Loan closure letter for loan account No.HILAVLC00413782 and also released the documents to the third party.

¶39

3.6 It is the further case of applicants that the second applicant was continuously asking the first respondent to regularize her loan account by paying the defaulted EMI for the loan account No.HILAVC00428498 but in vain. This being the situation, the first respondent after issuing a loan closure letter and no due letter dated 27.02.2023 for the Loan account No. HILAVC00413782, have issued a Sale Notice for sale of immovable property dated 29.09.2023 for two loan accounts viz., HILAVC00413782 and HILAVC00428498, claiming a sum of Rs.2,65,76,653/and Rs.1,41,41,297/- respectively. The date of sale is 06.11.2023 and the Sale Notice is issued for a consolidated recovery of Rs.4,07,17,950/including a loan which was closed in full. Hence the 1^st respondent is precluded to issue Sale Notice for the same account which is closed.

¶40

3.7 The borrower admits the liability with respect to Loan Account No.HILAVC00428498 and undertakes to pay the money borrowed along

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

with interest. There is no enabling provision for the Authorised officer to bring the property for sale on 06.11.2023, for the loan account already recovered. The Authorised officer failed to note that the Schedule A property was given as security only for Loan Account No. HILAVC00413782 and could not sell the said property for Loan Account No. HILAVC00428498, as no security interest has been created for the said loan account. The reserve price fixed by the 1^st respondent is too low, the same would go to show that there is no proper valuation as provided under Rule 8(5) of the SIE Rules.

¶45

4. Objections of the 1^st respondent:

¶46

4.1 First respondent financial institution filed counter denying all the averments made in the SA except those that are specifically admitted therein. It is the case of the 1^st respondent that applicant and 2^nd respondent, being husband and wife, had availed credit facility to the tune of Rs.5,05,00,000/- vide Loan Account No.HILAVLC00413782 and a sum of Rs.1 crore vide Loan Account No. HILAVLC00428498 on 19.02.2018 and executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of 1^st respondent. Loan is secured by equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the immovable property belonging to applicants, who executed Memorandum of deposit of title deeds registered as Doc No.895 of 2018 and 896/2018 before SRO, Ashok Nagar dated 24.04.2018.

¶47

4.2 It is further submitted that as borrowers defaulted in repayment of dues, the loan accounts were classified as NPA on 27.03.2021 and

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

29.05.2021 in accordance with RBI guidelines and initiated recovery measures under SARFAESI Act by issuing Demand Notice dated 30.03.2021 calling upon the borrowers to remit a sum of Rs.6,25,51,856.50p due as on 27.03.2021 and Demand Notice dated 18.06.2021 for recovery of sum of Rs.1,17,48,687/- due as on 29.05.2021 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of said notice. The Demand Notice was duly served to applicants, however the as the notice to 2^nd respondent returned unserved, Demand Notice was also published in two daily newspapers viz., ‘Business Standard’ and ‘Makkal Kural’ on 16.04.2021. As borrowers had neither repaid the loan nor had sent any reply / objection to the Demand Notice, 1^st respondent proceeded further and took symbolic possession of the mortgaged property by issuing Possession Notice on 11.08.2021 and 05.01.2022 respectively under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Possession Notice was duly served, affixed on the same date and published in two newspapers, ‘Business Standard’ and ‘Makkal Kural’ on 16.08.2021 and 05.01.2022 respectively, strictly in accordance to the Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶52

4.3 It is submitted by respondent bank that challenging the Possession Notice dated 11.08.2021, applicant had filed SA 406/2021 before DRT-II, Chennai since transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TSA No.310/2023. Further, challenging the Possession Notice dated 05.01.2022, applicant had filed SA No.95/2022 before DRT-II, Chennai

¶53

SA No.569/2023

¶54

7 16.09.2025

¶55

since transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TSA No.329/2023, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2025.

¶56

4.4 As the default of the borrower’s continued, 1^st respondent had issued First Sale Notice dated 26.10.2021, fixing the sale on 30.11.2021, however sale did not take place for want of bidders. Thereafter, 1^st respondent issued second Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022 fixing the sale on 21.02.2022 and the sale has not taken place for want of bidders.

¶57

4.5 In the meanwhile, the applicants had approached the 1^st respondent financial institution to settle the account in part payment by selling the mortgaged property No.1 (being commercial property) in favour of third party. The said proposal was accepted by 1^st respondent financial institution and a Tripartite Agreement dated 03.06.2022 was entered into between the parties, subject to the payment of Rs.5,50,00,000/- in the manner as part payment towards the loan account. In pursuance to the part payment of Rs.5.5 crores, a Deed of Release of Mortgage Rights dated 27.02.2023 was executed between the first respondent financial institution, 1^st applicant and 2^nd respondent and accordingly, first respondent financial institution had released al the mortgaged rights over property No.1 being Plot No.14, New Door No.7, Old Door No.4 (commercial Property), T.S. 23/2, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Now known as Dr. Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024 (SA schedule property No.1). Further registered Sale Deed dated 27.02.2023 was executed by the 1^st applicant and the 2^nd respondent in favour of the third party vide Doc. No.656/2023. Thereafter, first respondent financial

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

institution continued to hold charge pertaining to property No.2 (residential property) and are continuing with their recovery measures and issued Sale Notice dated 29.09.2023 fixing the sale on 06.11.2023 only against the mortgaged property No.2, which measure is under challenge in this SA No.569/2023.

¶62

4.6 It is submitted by 1^st respondent that subsequent to filing of SA by the applicants, this Tribunal granted interim order of stay and in compliance of the order dated 04.11.2023 in SA No.569/2023, the applicant had deposited the cheque of Rs.14,50,000/- on 04.11.2023 in favour of first respondent.

¶63

4.7 It is contended by 1^st respondent that the 1^st applicant approached the 1^st respondent herein to settle the account in part payment by selling the mortgaged property No.1 in favour of the third party. The 1^st respondent accepted the proposal and thereby a Tripartite Agreement dated 03.06.2022 was executed subject to payment of Rs.5.5 crores in the manner as part payment towards the Loan Account No.HILACLV00413782. In pursuant to receipt of sum of Rs.5.5 crores, 1^st respondent had executed a Release Deed dated 27.02.2023, thereby releasing rights over the mortgaged property No.1 (commercial property). It is pertinent to mention that the Loan Account No. HILACLV00413782 is still subsisting and the 1^st respondent continued to hold charge over the mortgaged Property No.2 as security over the said loan account. Therefore, the averments that the 1^st respondent had orally assured of

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

closing the loan account No. HILACLV00413782 on the realization of Rs.5.5 crores is incorrect and vehemently denied.

¶68

4.8 It is further denied that the 1^st respondent had issued Loan closure Letter dated 27.02.2023 for Loan Account No. HILAVLC00413782. The contentions that the applicants have liability only with respect to Loan Account No.HILAVLC00428498 is vehemently denied. The applicants and 2^nd respondent have huge liability of overdue payments pertaining to both loan accounts viz., in HILAVLC00413782 – Rs.2,63,02,530/- and in HILAVLC00428498 – Rs.1,30,58,936/-

¶69

4.9 It is submitted by 1^st respondent that since the E-auction under challenge has failed and it does not suffer from any error of law and no case is made out by the applicants, there present SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶70

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

¶71

5.1 Applicant has challenged the present SA impugning the Sale Notice dated 29.09.2023. Both the counsels submitted that the sale has not taken place in view of the fact that the Tribunal had granted an interim order of stay. The issue raised by the applicant in the present SA is that the bank has issued the loan clearance letter dated 27.02.2023 confirming that the applicant has paid entire outstanding dues in full and that there are no dues payable against the loan Account No.HILAVC00413782.

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

5.2 It is a specific contention of the applicant that the 1^st respondent after clearing the loan account has issued the closure letter, hence the 1^st respondent financial institution cannot enforce the security of another property. It is seen from the Sale Notice dated 29.09.2023 that the secured asset described are entirely different property, which does not pertain to the loan account No.HILAVC00413782, where the property being Plot No.14, New Door No.7, Old Door No.4 (commercial Property), T.S. 23/2, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Now known as Dr. Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024 was mortgaged, which has since been released. Hence the contention that the bank cannot proceed for the other properties and other loan is unsustainable.

¶76

5.3 Counsel for the respondent takes this Tribunal to the Tripartite Agreement dated 03.06.2022 entered between the applicant, the respondent institution and one Mr. Mohammed Anwar. As per the Tripartite Agreement, the borrower had agreed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,50,00,000/towards the loan account of HILAVC00413782 and entered into this agreement only for a part satisfaction in respect of the Loan Account No.HILAVC00413782. The relevant clause of the Tripartite Agreement is reproduced hereunder:

¶77

“2. That the Second Part, considering the financial constraints being faced by the First Part, has agreed to the proposal offered by the First Part, for settling Loan Account No. HILAVLC00413782, in part by sale of Schedule – B property in favour of the Third Part and the Second Part doth hereby grants no objection for the same subject to the

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

payment of the Part Loan Amount of Rs. 5,50,00,000/(Rupees Five Crore Fifty Lakh Only) to be paid directly to the Second Part by the First Part and Third Part in the manner prescribed herein below, to which none of the Parties shall have any objection.

¶82

*Payable By*	*Payable (on or* *before)*	*Amount*	*Mode of* *Payment*
Third Part	05.06.2022	2,00,00,000/-	DD/RTGS
First Part	30.07.2022	1,00,00,000/-	DD/RTGS
Third Part	30.09.2022	2,50,00,000/-	DD/RTGS
Total		5,50,00,000/-

¶83

3. That according to the above recital and agreement, the FIRST PART has paid Rs.2,00,00,000/(Rupees Two Crores only) vide Demand Draft in favour of the SECOND PART bearing No.087114 dated 02.06.2022 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, in presence of the FIRST PART, the receipt of which shall be acknowledged and admitted by the SECOND PART, only upon realisation of the above mentioned amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only), in the account of the SECOND PART.

¶84

4. That upon the realisation of the agreed Part Loan of Rs.5,50,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Fifty Lakh only), the SECOND PART shall release its lien / charge over Schedule B Property; and shall also issue a No Lien Letter to the FIRST PART with respect to SCHEDULE – B property. The possession of the Schedule B Property is with the FIRST PART and the same shall be handed over to the THIRD PART within 7 working days, after realisation of the Part Loan as mentioned above in the account of the SECOND PART and confirmation thereof by the SECOND PART.

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

10. That after the realisation of the agreed Part Loan Amount as mentioned herein-above in the account of the SECOND PART, the FIRST PART shall have no rights, claims, titles or interests whatsoever with respect to Schedule – B property, against the SECOND PART and / or the THIRD PART”

¶89

5.4 Further it is seen in the Tripartite Agreement that there are two properties which has been described as the secured asset. The 1^st respondent has considered the Tripartite Agreement for the applicant to sell the schedule B property and had given their consent. As per the Tripartite Agreement, it is seen that the property was to be sold for an amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/- and the proposal was accepted by the bank for the part satisfaction of the loan account of HILAVC00413782.

¶90

5.5 The 1^st respondent clarifies that after the realization of the agreed part loan amount, as per the clauses of the agreement, 1^st respondent have no right, claim or any interest with respect to schedule B property. Hence it is contended by the respondent that the account was not closed it was only a part satisfaction towards the claim amount.

¶91

5.6 However, the applicant relies on the closure letter given by the respondent and submits that the closure letter issued by the respondent is dated 27.02.2023 and the clarification letter (corrigendum) is dated 01.03.2024 which is after 13 months, to which the respondent clarifies that it was an inadvertent mistake which has been clarified vide letter

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

dated 01.03.2024 and takes the reference to the letter dated 27.02.2023 which pertains to the Loan Account No.HILAVC00413782. The contents of the letter dated 27.02.2023 issued by first respondent is extracted hereunder:

¶96

“ To,

¶97

Sri Mookambika Enterprises

¶98

Plot No.14, New Door No.7, Old Door No.4 (Commercial Property)

¶99

Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600024.

¶100

Date: 27.02.2023

¶101

Closure of Your HL/HE/LAP/ILAP Account: HILAVLC00413782

¶102

Dear Sir/Madam,

¶103

This is to confirm that the above mentioned loan account is repaid in full and there are no further dues payable against this loan account: HILAVLC00413782.

¶104

Kindly acknowledge that you have received the following Documents which were deposited with us as the security to the above said loan facility.

¶105

1.	Org. Regd. Sale Deed Dated 13.02.1967. Between S. Appakutti Pillai in Favour of Mr. Rakesh Chakraborty. Doc No.374/1967.
2.	Org. Regd. Sale Deed Dated 13.06.2005. Between Mrs. Anjali Chakraborty in Favour of Mr. K. Bakthavatchalam. Doc No.1533/2005.
3.	Org. Regd. Sale Deed Dated 13.06.2005. Between Mrs. Anjali Chakraborty in Favour of Mrs. B. Sagunthala. Doc No. 1534/2005.
4.	Org. Regd. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Dated 28.03.2017. Between Mr. K. Bakthavachalam in Favour of M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Doc No.782/2017.
5.	Org. Regd. Receipt for Discharge of Mortgage Dated 04.04.2018. Between M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. In favour of Mr. K. Bakthavatchalam. Doc No.756/2018.
6.	Org. Extract from Town Survey Land Register in Favour of Mr. B.

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

	Bakthavarchalam Dated 17.02.2009.
7.	Org. NOC from M/s Treselle Systems Pvt. Ltd. In Favour of IVL Finance Ltd. Dated 27.02.2018.
8.	Org. NOC from M/s Royal Pet Foods Vet Pharmacy in Favour of IVL Finance Ltd. Dated 27.02.2018.
9.	Org. No Dues from M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance in Favour of Mrs. Sakunthala B. Dated 31.03.2018.

¶110

Authorised Signatory”

¶111

5.7 It is specifically admitted by the 1^st respondent that the original title deeds of the property was released vide letter dated 27.02.2023, which is acknowledged and signed by the applicant. It is further clarified by the respondent that there occurred an inadvertent mistake in writing that they confirmed that the loan account is closed and they have received the above mentioned document to their complete satisfaction.

¶112

5.8 The 1^st respondent relied on the letter of clarification dated 01.03.2024 and also the Tripartite Agreement dated 03.06.2022 and assertively submitted that there was no full satisfaction of the loan account as per the terms of the Tripartite Agreement, it was only a part satisfaction and based on the part satisfaction terms entered between the parties, the respondent have released the Schedule-B property to the applicant herein. The relevant portion of the clarification letter dated 01.03.2024 is extracted hereunder:

¶113

“In accordance with the said TPA, the secured creditor also released the mortgage over the said property vide Deed of

¶114

Release of Mortgage Rights dated 27.02.2023 (“Release

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

Deed”). In the said Release Deed it was clearly mentioned that the same was being executed in pursuance to the said TPA and

¶119

nowhere was it mentioned that the loan account No.HILAVLC00413782 was closed

¶120

The original Title Deeds of the subject property were released by the secured creditor vide Letter dated 27.02.2023. In the acknowledgment portion of the said, which has been signed by you the addressee No.1 and 2 it was inadvertently written that you both confirm that the loan account (No.HILAVLC00413782)

¶121

is closed and that you have received the above mentioned documents to your complete satisfaction.

¶122

Please do note that the acknowledgment portion of the said letter dated 27.02.2023 does not bear signatures of the Secured Creditor and that as explained above, the mentioning

¶123

of the account being closed is an advertence of which you the above addressees are trying to take undue advantage and alleging that the account No. No.HILAVLC00413782 stood closed on account of this inadvertence which crept in the said letter dated 27.02.2023”

¶124

5.9 Infact the applicant and the respondent admit that the loan account bearing Account No.HILAVC00413782 is closed. The applicant has made an attempt to point out the irregularity in the sale notice contending that the respondent cannot claim the entire amount as due inspite of closure of an account. It is evident that the Tripartite Agreement dated

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

03.06.2022 entered between the patties is only a part satisfaction of amount due from various loan availed by the borrowers and there was no full satisfaction of the loan account as per the terms of the Tripartite Agreement, and on receipt of the amount as per the Agreement, the respondent have released the Schedule-B property to the applicant herein. 5.10 The present SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 29.09.2023, however the sale did not materialize, the SA has been rendered infructuous. As the sale has not materialized and the other measures under challenge viz., challenge to Possession Notice has since been dismissed on merits by this Tribunal, nothing survives in the SA for adjudication and the prayer sought in the SA has become infructuous.

¶129

Resultantly the present SA stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶130

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶131

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

¶132

( Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 16^th day of September, 2025)

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶138

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Sanction letter Sri Mookambika Enterprises dated 14.02.2018.	A-1
2.	Sanction letter in favour of second applicant dated 19.03.2018.	A-2
3.	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds Doc.No.895/2018 dated 24.04.2018.	A-3
4.	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds Doc.No.896/2018 dated 24.04.2018.	A-4
5.	Demand Notice U/s 13(2) for Loan A/c. No. HILAVLC00413782 dated 30.03.2021.	A-5
6.	Demand Notice U/s 13(2) for Loan A/c. No. HILAVLC00428498 dated 18.06.2021.	A-6
7.	Possession notice for Loan A/c. No. HILAVLC00413782 dated 11.08.2021.	A-6
8.	Possession notice for Loan A/c. No. HILAVLC00428498 dated 05.01.2022.	A-7
9.	Tripartite Agreement dated 03.06.2022.	A-8
10.	Loan Closure Letter issued for Loan A/c. No. HILAVLC00413782 dated 27.02.2023.	A-9
11.	Impugned Sale Notice for sale of immovable property dated 29.09.2023.	A-10

¶139

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT

¶140

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Settlement Deed dated 18.04.2018..	R-1
2.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 24.04.2018.	R-2
3.	Simple Mortgage Deed dated 24.04.2018.	R-3
4.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 24.04.2018.	R-4
5.	Simple Mortgage Deed dated 24.04.2018.	R-5
6.	Name Change of R1 issued by Corporate Affairs dated 24.10.2018.	R-6
7.	CERSAI Report.	R-7
8.	Demand Notice along with Postal Receipts, affixtures Paper Publication Statement of Accounts dated 30.03.2021.	R-8
9.	Demand Notice along with Postal Receipts Paper Publication dated 18.06.2021.	R-9
10.	Possession Notice along with Postal Receipts affixtures & Paper Publication dated 11.08.2021.	R-10

¶141

SA No.569/2023

¶142

18 16.09.2025

¶143

11.	First Sale Notice dated 26.10.2021.	R-11
12.	Interim Stay order in SA 406 of 2021 dated 03.12.2021.	R-12
13.	Possession Notice along with Postal Receipts affixtures & Paper Publication dated 05.01.2022.	R-13
14.	Sale Notice dated 29.01.2022.	R-14
15.	SARFAESI Application in SA 406 of 2021 filed by the applicant before DRT-II dated 23.09.2021.	R-15
16.	Counter filed by the First Respondent dated 05.2022.	R-16
17.	SARFAESI Application in SA 95 of 2022 filed by the applicant before DRT-II dated 17.02.2022.	R-17
18.	Counter filed by the First Respondent.	R-18
19.	Tripartite Agreement dated 03.06.2022.	R-19
20.	Sale Notice dated 29.09.2023.	R-20
21.	Valuation Report.	R-21
22.	Postal Tracking Receipts of Sale Notice.	R-22
23.	Affixture of Sale Notice dated 03.10.2023.	R-23
24.	Paper Publication of Sale Notice in English Daily Times of India dated 06.10.2023.	R-24
25.	Paper Publication of Sale Notice in Tamil Daily Dinakaran dated 06.10.2023.	R-25
26.	Postal Tracking Receipts of Sale Notice	R-26
27.	Statement of Accounts	R-27
	Additional typed set of documents
28.	Tripartite Agreement dated 03.06.2022	R-28
29.	Letter to First respondent seeking FCL 16.02.2023	R-29
30.	Release of Mortgage Deed 27.02.2023	R-30
31.	Sale deed dated 27.02.2023	R-31
32.	Corrigendum issued by the 1^strespondent dated 01.03.2024	R-32
33.	FCL of two loan accounts of the applicants dated 06.05.2025	R-33
34.	Statement of Accounts dated 06.05.2025	R-34

¶144

SCHEDULE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

¶145

SCHEDULE A

¶146

All That piece and parcel of plot no.13(New Door No.3, Old Door No.27), Ashok Nagar Main Road(Now DR. Ambedkar Road) 4^th Avenue,

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024, Tamil Nadu, Measuring To An Extent Of 1564 Sq.ft., of Land Together With Building & Two Shops And EB Connection Comprised in Old Survey Nos.18/1 Part, 19/1 Part, 20 Part, Patta C.A.No.535/10 & TR/282/10/11, T.S No.22/2, Block No.17, Situate at "Kodambakkam Village", Mambalam-Guindy Taluk Now Mambalam Taluk Chennai District.

¶151

Bounded on the

¶152

North By: Land and Building Belonging to Mrs. Neelavathi Ammal, Now Mr. K. Bakathavachalam & Mrs. B. Prabavathy;

¶153

South By: Chakravarthi House

¶154

East By: Sathiyanarayana Street

¶155

West By: 80 Feet Road (Ashok Nagar Main Road, Now Dr. Ambedkar Road)

¶156

Measuring on the

¶157

East to West on the northern side : 67 feet,

¶158

East to West on the southern side : 69 feet,

¶159

North to South Measuring on Eastern Side : 24 feet,

¶160

North to South Measuring on Western Side : 22 feet,

¶161

In All Total Extent Measuring an Extent of 1564 Sq.ft. of Land Together With Building and 2 Shops and EB Connection Situated within the Registration District of Chennai Central and the Sub-Registrar office at Ashok Nagar.

¶162

SCHEDULE B

¶163

All That Piece a Plot No.13(New Door No.3, Old Door No.27), Ashok Nagar Main Road (Now DR. Ambedkar Road) 4^th Avenue, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024, Tamil Nadu, Measuring To An Extent Of 1496.6 Sq.ft., of Land Together With Building Measuring to an Extent of 1800 Sq.ft., in Ground and First Floor and EB Connection, Comprised in old Survey

SA No.569/2023

16.09.2025

No.18/1 Part, Old T.S. No 22/2, Patta C.A. No 19/08 And TR/1868/0708, as per patta new T.S.No.22/3,Block No.17, Situated at "Kodambakkam Village", Mambalam – Guindy Taluk Now Mambalam taluk, Chennai District, Tamil Nadu.

¶168

Bounded on the

¶169

North By : Land and Building Belonging to Mrs. Neelavathi Ammal, Now Mr. K. Bakathavachalam & Mrs. B. Prabavathy;

¶170

South By : Chakravarthi House

¶171

East By : Sathiyanarayana Street,

¶172

West By : 80 Feet Road (Ashok Nagar Main Road, Now Dr. Ambedkar Road)

¶173

Measuring on the

¶174

East to West on the Northern Side : 63 feet

¶175

East to West on the Southern Side : 67 feet

¶176

North to South Measuring on Eastern Side : 24 feet

¶177

North to South Measuring on Western Side : 22 feet

¶178

In All Total Extent Measuring an Extent of 1496.6 Sq.ft. of Land Together With Building and EB Connection, Situated within the Registration District of Chennai Central and the Sub-Registrar office at Ashok Nagar.

¶179

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

Bakthavachalam Alias K Bakthavatchalam v. Dhani Loans and Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakthavachalam Alias K Bakthavatchalam v. Dhani Loans and Services 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

Similar cases

Indian Bank versus M/S Dhatchayani Foods

Indian Bank versus Vijeyendra Kumar

City Union Bank Limited versus Bois Technologies Private Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus Hari Baskar

Ms Sreenevasha Motors versus Indian Bank

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sekar