Dismissed

Ms Sreenevasha Motors v. Indian Bank

DRT16 Sept 2025SA/586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging an auction sale under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the applicant lacked locus standi as they filed regarding a different entity and ruled that the borrower’s right to redeem was extinguished after the auction notice publication.

What did the court decide?

The sale notice dated 21.09.2023, the auction sale on 30.10.2023, and the sale certificate issued on 23.11.2023 are held as valid. The applicant has no right to challenge the sale after the publicatio

Ms Sreenevasha Motors versus Indian Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

SA No.586/2023

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

SA No. 586 of 2023

¶8

M/s. Sreenevasha Services, Rep by Partnership firm,

¶9

Mr. Kumaravel & P. Chakkaravarthy, No.5/30 (Old No.5/27),

¶10

Dharmapuri Main Road, Karimangalam,

¶11

Dharmapuri.

¶12

Mr. P. Kumaravel,

¶13

S/o. Paneerselvam, D.No.280, Aatrupalam Kottai, Devarmukulam Post, Karadhalli, Krishnagiri.

¶14

Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy, S/o. Parthiban, D.No.2/146, Alamarathupatti Bommahalli, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

Mrs. K. Naveena, W/o. Kumaravel, D.No.280, Aatrupalam Kottai, Devarmukulam Post, Karadhalli, Krishnagiri.

¶16

Mrs. C. Kalaimani, W/o. Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy, D.No.2/146, Alamarathupatti Bommahalli, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District. ….Applicants -Vs-

¶17

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank,

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

Karimangalam Branch, No.16, Palacode Road, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.

¶22

Balakrishnan, D.No.605/87-5, M.G. Road, Theerthagiri Nagar, Karagathahalli, Palacode, Dharmapuri -636 808. ….Respondents

¶23

The 2^nd responded is impleaded as per Order dated 05.03.2025 in I.A. No.1217/2024.

¶24

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶25

Counsel for Applicant	: M/s. G. Mohammed Aseef
Counsel for 1^strespondent	: M/s. L. Ramkumar
Counsel for 2^ndrespondent	: M/s. Vijayakumar.D

¶26

ORDER ON SA 586/2023

¶27

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 08.11.2023 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].

¶28

The applicant has challenged the E-Auction Sale held on 30.10.2023 in pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 21.09.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.1,47,65,000/-

¶29

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶30

The 1^st applicant is a partnership firm represented by its partners Mr.

¶31

P. Kumaravel, the 2^nd applicant and Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy the third

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

applicants herein. The applicants availed a Loan (OCC No.6138821938, 6539827729, 6865753526. SME-6612117966, 6865754950, Covid Emg6875161811, 6875161775, GECLS-6884856449, 6884852569, 7133981128, 6875161866) which was to be repaid as per the terms of the sanction. It is submitted that the default occurred due to the fire accident and the company has registered an FIR Crime No.26.03.2019.

¶36

3.1 The applicants never allowed their account to become a NPA, However the applicant received the Sec.13(2) demand notice on 02.05.2022 and immediately approached the respondent bank seeking for an explanation, how the EMI was irregular and also made all the efforts to put an ended to the issue. The bank has issued the possession notice without giving any gap under Sec.13(4) read with Rule 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶37

3.2 Further the bank has issued the sale notice dated 21.09.2023, for the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,47,65,000/- though the applicant had approached the bank for one time settlement which were rejected. The sale was scheduled on 30.10.2023 and one Balakrishnan as bid the property, who is the successful bidder and has paid 25% of reserve price.

¶38

3.3 It is contented that the bank without considering the applicant request cannot proceed under the SARFAESI Act and cannot invoke section 17(1) of the Act. In the grounds it is contented that the classification of account as NPA is against the guidelines of the RBI and without giving any opportunity or considering the request made by the applicant to settle the

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

dues bank as proceeded under the SARFAESI Act which is unreasonable and unwarranted.

¶43

3.4 Further it is contented that the bank has charged excess interest in violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in case of Ravindra Vs. Central Bank of India.

¶44

3.5 The outstanding amount shown in the sale notice is imaginary not borne out of records. The notice under Rule 6(2) & 8(6) has been issued without following the procedures, sale notice is neither served or published and the issuance of sale notice is against the principles of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Mardia Chemicals and Hon’ble Madras High Court in Lakshmi Shankar Mills.

¶45

3.6 It is further contended that the sale notice is not issued, description of the property is not property described; sale notice is not published in two newspapers and the reserve price fixed for the property is very low. Hence prays to set aside the E-auction sale held on 30.10.2023 in pursuant to the sale notice dated 21.09.2023.

¶46

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶47

The respondent has filed the counter along with all supporting documents inter alia contenting that the loan was availed by one M/s. Sreenevasha Motors, a partnership concern and all the loan documents were executed by the partnership firm. As the borrower defaulted in the repayment, the bank initiated the proceedings against M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and issued demand notice on 02.05.2022, the possession notice

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

dated 19.09.2022, and sale notice dated 21.09.2023 to the partnership firm.

¶52

4.1 On the contrary, the present application is filed by M/s. Sreenevasha Services, a proprietorship concern, which is a different entity. The borrower of M/s. Sreenevasha Motors is Mr. P. Kumaravel and Mr. P. Chakkaravathy are partners, and Mrs. K. Naveena and Mrs. C. Kalaiamani are Guarantors, whereas M/s. Sreenevasha Services is a concerned, owned by Mr. P. Chakkaravathy as proprietor and Mrs. C. Kalaiamani is the guarantor. In the instant matter, all the loan documents are executed by Sreenevasha Motors and the present applicant M/s. Sreenivasha Services has no locus to file the above SA. Hence is liable to be dismissed in limine.

¶53

4.2 It is the case of the respondent that the Sreenevasha Motors had availed various loan facilities such as Micro Small ENT-OCC loans, MSE loan, IND MSE, Covid Emergency LN, MSME IND for the total sum of Rs.1,35,59,000/- from the respondent bank.

¶54

4.3 The 2^nd and 3^rd applicant are the partners of the Sreenevasha Motors who had signed and executed the documents on behalf of the Sreenevasha Motors. The 4^th and 5^th applicants are the guarantors for the loan availed by the Sreenevasha Motors. The 2^nd and 3^rd applicants who are the partners of the Sreenevasha Motors have equitably mortgaged their property more fully described in the schedule to the present appeal in order to secure the above loans vide Doc.No.906 of 2016, 1658 of 2016, 824 of 2017, 420 of 2017, 635 of 2020, 907 of 2020.

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

4.4 As the borrower was irregular in the repayment despite repeated request the loan account of M/s. Sreenevasha Motors was classified as NPA on 29.05.2021 in strict adherence to RBI guidelines. The outstanding amount as on 18.04.2022 was Rs.1,28,31,472/- along with further interest from 19.04.2022 till the date of repayment. After the classification of account as NPA, the bank has issued the demand notice dated 02.05.2022 calling upon M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and its partners to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,31,472/- due as on 18.04.2022 within a period of 60 days.

¶59

4.5 The notice was sent to the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and its partners and the same have been received by the 4^th applicant and the notice sent to the applicants are returned with an endorsement “Refused”. Hence the demand notice was published in a vernacular daily “Dinamalar” on 07.05.2022 and published in English daily “Indian Express” on 07.05.2022. The borrowers and the guarantors did not bothered to reply nor paid the money, hence the bank issued the possession notice on 19.09.2022 under sec.13(4) exercising the power under section 13(12) of the Act.

¶60

4.6 The possession notice was sent through registered post with acknowledgement card and the same was refused by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors; the possession notice dated 19.09.2022 is affixed on the secured asset, the possession notice published in vernacular daily Dinamalar on 24.09.2022 and English daily Indian Express dated 24.09.2022. Despite the service of the possession notice M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and its partners did not bothered to repay any amount towards the outstanding. Hence the respondent issued the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 for sale of

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

the secured asset on 30.10.2023 in exercising the power under Rule 6(2) & 8(6) of the security interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002.

¶65

4.7 The sale notice was duly sent through registered post with acknowledgement card and the same was refused by applicants. The sale notice dated 21.09.2023 was affixed on the secured asset, published in the vernacular daily Dinamalar on 29.09.2023 and in English daily Indian Express on 29.09.2023. The sale notice dated 21.09.2023 is challenged by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and its partners in the above case.

¶66

4.8 The sale has taken place and the secured asset is sold to the highest bidder Mr. G. Balakrishnan, the sale certificate dated 23.11.2023 is issued which is pending for registration before the concern SRO. The bank denies the averments made in the SA and submits that the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors had availed the loans and its repayment was secured by Mortgage. It is false to state that the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors have not defaulted in servicing the loan account. Due to default in the repayment by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors, the loan account was classified as NPA. The demand notice, possession notice and sale notice are issued to M/s. Sreenevasha Motors as per the procedure.

¶67

4.9 However, the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors or its partners had not approached the bank for One Time Settlement with reasonable payment and the statement of accounts maintained by the bank clearly reflects all amount paid by the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors are duly credited.

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

4.10 Further Sreenevasha Motors has not made out a single ground to assail the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 and the sale notice was sent to registered post and the affixture was made on 21.09.2023. The notice published in English daily and the vernacular daily on 29.09.2023. The interest and the declaration of M/s. Sreenevasha Motors account as NPA are followed as per the Act, and guidelines. Hence the respondent prays to dismiss the above appeal with exemplary cost.

¶72

Objections of the 2^nd respondent bank:

¶73

The 2^nd respondent is the auction purchaser has also filed written submission contenting that the 2^nd respondent is auction purchaser who is complied with all the terms and conditions of the auction process conducting by the 1^st respondent on 30.10.2023 and the sale was duly finalized in favour of the 2^nd respondent. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that once the auction process is complete, the borrower cannot undo the same unless the dues are paid before the confirmation of the sale as held in Mathew Varghese. Vs. M. Amritha Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 610.

¶74

5.1 It is submitted that the auction process was conducted strictly in accordance with the provision of the SARFAESI Act and 2^nd respondent was declared as the highest bidder during the auction held on 30.10.2023. The second respondent has paid 25% of the bid amount immediately, and fully complied with all the terms and conditions, including the payment of the remaining balance amount.

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

5.2 The sale was confirmed, and sale certificate was issued in favour of the second respondent on 23.11.2023. Subsequently, the sale deed is also executed and registered in favour of the second respondent on 19.09.2024 by completing the sale process. The second respondent relies on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakeena Vs. Bank of India, (2019) 6 SCC 237 emphasizing that the auction purchaser right becomes perfected once the sale certificate is issued, and subsequent challenges by the borrower cannot disturb the title acquired through a lawful auction.

¶79

5.3 It is contented that as per Sec.13(8) the borrower must tender the entire dues before the confirmation of the sale or issuance of the sale certificate, which the applicant did not make any valid tender before the issuance of the sale certificate on 23.11.2023. The applicants failed to tender any amount even before the registration of the sale deed.

¶80

5.4 Further reliance is placed on J. Rajiv Subramaniyan & Anr. V. Pandiyas & Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 651- where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the borrower’s right to redeem the property ceases after the issuance of the sale certificate, emphasizing that the only way to avoid the auction sale is by tendering the entire dues before the confirmation of the sale.

¶81

5.5 Further it is submitted that the applicants have also filed SA.351/2024 before DRT-III challenging the order of the Chief judicial magistrate under section 14 and obtained interim order of status quo without mentioning the auction proceedings of the mortgage property and

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

the issuance of the sale certificate. The SA.351/2024 is also pending before DRT-I.

¶86

5.6 It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent is a bonafide purchaser for value, having lawfully purchased the property through the auction process has paid the entire sale consideration amount and is now the rightful owner of the property.

¶87

5.7 Further the 2^nd respondent has relied on Judgment of the Vidhyadhar. V. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573 –The Court has consistently upheld the rights of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, protecting such purchaser from the consequences of disputes between the borrower and the secured creditor, as long as the sale was conducted lawfully.

¶88

5.8 Further on 1^st September 2016 amendment to section 13(8) of the 2002 Act, came into force as a result of which the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs and expenses incurred by him are required to be tendered before the date of publication of the public auction and hence the applicant have laws there to redeem the property as per the Sec.13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶89

5.9 The right to redemption stands extinguished on the registered sale deed in favour of the second respondent and has relied on judgment, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in “Sri Sai Annadhatha Polymers. Vs. Canara Bank” –LENINDORD 2018 AP 108 and the decision of the Telegana High Court in the case of “k.v.v. Prasad Rao Gupta. Vs. State Bank of India” 2021 SCC Online TS 328, lay down the correct position of

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

law while interpreting the correct position of law while interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶94

5.10 The Supreme Court in “CELIR LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt, Ltd., & ORS” -2023 (10) TMI 48 Supreme Court, upheld the amended provision of section 13(8) of SARFAESI.

¶95

5.11 The Honourable Supreme Court observed that in the present case there was a failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues including the charges, interest, costs etc., before the publication of the auction notice as required under Section 13(8) of SARFAESI would also sufficiently constitute extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage by the act of the parties. Once the section 13(8) stages was over and auction stood concluded it could be said that there was an intentional relinquishment of his right of redemption under section 13(8), whereby the bank declared the auction purchaser as the successful auction purchase having offered the highest bid in accordance with the terms of the auction notice. Hence on this grounds the second respondent prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶96

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

¶97

The present SA is filed challenging the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 which is produced by the applicant at pg.21 of the SA book. The 1^st respondent is the secured creditor and the 2^nd respondent is the auction purchaser who is successfully bidder of the property in the sale held on

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

30.10.2023. The bank on the complete payment of the entire sale consideration have issued the sale certificate on 23.11.2023 favoring the Auction purchaser Mr. G. Balakrishnan, the second respondent herein.

¶102

6.1 Thought the applicant has challenged the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 the respondent bank in their counter have questioned the locus of the applicant herein to challenge the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 issued to the borrower M/s. Sreenevasha Motors which is a partnership firm represented by Mr. P. Kumaravel and partner Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy. It seen that the Mrs. C. Kalaimani and Mrs. K. Naveena are the guarantors to the various loans availed by the borrower M/s. Sreenevasha Motors.

¶103

6.2 The respondent bank has raised the preliminary objection with regard to locus of the applicant to challenge the sale notice dated 21.09.2023. On perusal of the SA papers, it seen that the applicant is M/s. Sreenevasha Services, is a partnership firm represented by Mr. Kumaravel and P. Chakkaravarthy and K. Naveena and C. Kalaimani are the guarantors.

¶104

6.3 The measure taken by the bank under the Act pertains to the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and the secured asset sold is towards the loan account availed by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors, whereas the present SA filed by Sreenevasha Services which is proprietary concerned. Hence the applicant has no locus to challenge the measures imitated by the bank under the Act towards the loan account of M/s. Sreenevasha Motors which a partnership firm.

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

6.4 It is seen that the loan was availed by M/s. Sreenevasha Motors, a partnership concern and all the loan documents were executed by the partnership firm. It seen from the records that the borrowers have executed the supplemental memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 24.05.2016, 23.09.2016 and 28.06.2017 favoring the respondent bank.

¶109

6.5 Further the deposit of title deeds dated 15.07.2023 is also executed by the 1^st and 2^nd applicants and the supplemental memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 04.03.2020, 05.05.2020 and 17.06.2020 is also executed which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar favoring the respondent bank. In fact the applicants does not dispute the availing of the credit facility mortgage of the properties as collateral security towards the credit facilities availed by the borrower M/s. Sreenevasha Motors. As they defaulted in the repayment the bank initiated the proceedings against M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and issued demand notice on 02.05.2022, the possession notice dated 19.09.2022, and sale notice dated 21.09.2023 to the partnership firm.

¶110

6.6 On the contrary, the present application is filed by M/s. Sreenevasha Services, a proprietorship concern, which is a different entity. The borrower of M/s. Sreenevasha Motors is Mr. P. Kumaravel and Mr. P. Chakkaravathy are partners, and Mrs. K. Naveena and Mrs. C. Kalaiamani are Guarantors, whereas M/s. Sreenevasha Services is a concerned, owned by Mr. P. Chakkaravathy is the proprietor and Mrs. C. Kalaiamani is the guarantor. In the instant matter, all the loan documents are executed by Sreenevasha

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

Motors, hence the present applicant M/s. Sreenivasha Serivces has no locus to file the above SA, which is liable to be dismissed in limine.

¶115

6.7 It seen from the records that the M/s. Sreenevasha Motors availed credit facilities as detailed in sale notice dated 21.09.2023 and there is no dispute with regard to the mortgage of the property and the outstanding amount due in the loan accounts. It is also admitted fact that the applicant have received that the 13(2) demand notice dated 02.05.2022.

¶116

6.8 The loan account was classified as NPA on various dates in respect of the loan accounts as per the RBI guidelines. Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued S. 13(2) demand notice dated 02.05.2022, where it seen that the parties are M/s. Sreenevasha Motors represented by its partners and the guarantors. The S. 13(2) demand notice clearly describes the types of loan availed, the nature of facility and the documents executed by the borrowers as well as by the guarantors.

¶117

6.9 Further the description of the mortgage property is clearly mentioned in the S.13(2) demand notice. The Sec.13(2) demand notice is sent by RPAD which is admittedly refused, and the notice sent to Mrs. K. Naveena is received on 04.06.2022 and the notice sent to P. Chakkaravarthy , C. Kalaimani and K. Naveena have returned as refused, when the notice sent by RPAD is refused it is deemed as served.

¶118

6.10 Further the contents of the demand notice is published in the Newspaper English daily Indian Express and Tamil Vernacular daily Dinamalar as evident from pg. 68 to 69 of the bank typeset.

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

6.11 In spite of receipt of the S.13(2) demand notice, the borrower and guarantors did not liquated the liability within the period of 60 days nor raised any objection to the demand made. Hence the respondent bank have proceeded further in issuing the possession notice under Sec.13(4) of the Act on 19.09.2022. The possession notice is also sent by RPAD, affixed on the property as per document produced at pg.92 of the typeset and possession notice also published in the two newspapers as required under the Act.

¶123

6.12 Thought the affixture of Sec.13(4) was made the applicant had not made any effort to settle the liability nor raised any objections as required under the Act. Hence the bank has issued the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 which is also sent by RPAD and the sale notice is published in two newspapers and the affixture of sale notice is effected on the property as per pg.98,99,99A of the bank type set.

¶124

6.13 In fact, the applicant does not dispute the issuance of the sale notice and the auction sale held on 30.10.2023. However, takes a contention that the sale notice is not served. The affixture of the sale notice evidences the fact that the applicant was aware of the issuance of the sale notice and the same is also reflected in para 4 contenting that the respondent bank issued the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 for an outstanding of Rs.1,47,65,000/and has impugned the sale notice and sale held in the present SA.

¶125

6.14 Though the applicant has taken a contention that the bank has not classified the account as NPA as per the RBI guidelines has not made out

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

any specific case of irregularity in the classification of the account as NPA. A mere statement that the bank has charged excess interest which is against the Supreme Court Judgment in case titled Ravindra Vs. in Central bank of India does not come to the help of the applicant as it is not supported by any documents or statement of accounts to establish that interest charged is in excess contrary to the agreement.

¶130

6.15 On the contrary the respondent bank have charged the interest as per the applicable terms and conditions of the sanction. The further contention that the possession notice and the sale notice are not published or served is countered by the respondent bank and thought the sale notice is affixed on the property the applicant did not tender the entire dues has required under the Act.

¶131

6.16 In fact the applicant has failed to redeem the property under section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. Section 13(8) deals with the borrower's right to redeem the secured asset. This right is available until the date of publication of the notice for public auction or inviting quotations for the sale or transfer of the asset. If the borrower tenders the dues before this date, the secured asset cannot be transferred by the creditor.

¶132

6.17 It is settled position of law that the right of the borrower or the mortgager to redeem the property under sec.13(8) is till the paper publication of the sale notice.

¶133

6.18 In the instant matter, sale notice is published in Newspapers English daily The New Indian Express and Tamil daily Dinamani dated 29.09.2023

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

and the applicant did not come forward to redeem the property as per sec.13(8) of the Act, thus voluntarily extinguished is right to redeem the property under S. 13(8).

¶138

6.19 The Tribunal places reliance on the judgment of Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors , where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the SARFAESI Act will get extinguished once the bank publishes an auction notice for the sale of the secured asset and further held that the failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues before the publication of the auction notice as per Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act constituted an "extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage"(para 63 of the judgment). Once the Section 13(8) stage was over and the auction was concluded, the borrower do not have any right of redemption under Section 13(8) left.

¶139

6.20 It further held that the legal sanctity of auction process under the Act must be protected and went on to state that any other interpretation in such matters " would lead to a very chilling effect ", where no auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act would have any form of sanctity. The court added–

¶140

"Such a scenario is all the more worrisome, because the general public who participate in such auctions are often neither aware nor informed by the secured creditors conducting the auctions, that as long as the sale certificate is not issued, they will not have a right in the said asset and that the borrower whose asset is being auctioned could sweep-in and redeem

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

the mortgage any time, and thereby thwart their rights and the very auction process."

¶145

6.21 Thus it was found necessary to interpret Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act in a manner where the legal sanctity attached to an auction process was protected. If the same was not done, the court stated that all auctions under the SARFAESI Act would be "meaningless" and would render the object of Section 13 and the overall scheme of the SARFAESI Act of enabling the banks from recovering its dues in a timely manner, without the interference of courts futile.

¶146

6.22 It is a matter of record that technically speaking the applicant has no locus to challenge the present sale notice dated 21.09.2023 as the applicant is Sreenevasha Services, whereas the bank has issued the sale notice to

¶147

borrower M/s. Sreenevasha Motors. Though the partner Mr. P. Chakkaravarthy and the others partners, are also the borrowers of M/s. Sreenevasha Services has no locus to challenge the present SA.

¶148

6.23 Even otherwise the respondent bank have produced all the documents in support of the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act to the loan of M/s. Sreenevasha Motors and have duly established the due compliance of the procedures as required under the Act in issuing the S.13(2) demand notice and S.13(4) possession notice and the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 .

¶149

6.24 The bank have successfully sold the property to the auction purchaser who is the second respondent herein. The second respondent being the successful bidder have bid the property as per the terms and conditions of

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

sale and have paid the entire sale consideration as required under the Act. And on payment of the entire sale consideration the sale certificate is issued on 23.11.2023.

¶154

6.25 The second respondent has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court as well as on the Supreme Court to content that once the sale certificate is issued and the sale is concluded, the borrower cannot challenge the sale. Further reliance’s also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CELIR LLP VS. Bafna Motors case to content that the applicant have extinguished their right and cannot the challenge the sale concluded and the sale certificate issued.

¶155

6.26 On examination of the pleadings, the documents produced by all parties, it is established that due to the default in the repayment by the borrower and the guarantors the respondent has secured creditor as initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and have issued the S.13(2) demand notice dated 02.05.2022, S.13(4) possession notice dated 19.09.2022 by following all the procedures as required under the Act and the same are held as valid notices. Further the sale notice dated 21.09.2023 is issued and the sale is conducted after obtaining the valuation report from their approved valuer.

¶156

6.27 Thought the applicant has challenged the sale notice and the sale held, has not pointed out any illegality in conducting the auction sale and has failed to establish any irregularity in the measures taken by the respondent bank.

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

6.28 For the foregoing reasons the present SA is only to be dismissed, Accordingly SA stands dismissed, and the sale notice dated 21.09.2023,

¶161

sale held on 30.10.2023 and the sale certificate issued on 23.11.2023 are held as valid measures taken by the respondent bank.

¶162

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

¶163

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

¶164

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

¶165

ANNEXURES

¶166

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶167

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Application U/s.17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 07.11.2023.	A-1
2.	Partnership Deed dated 03.06.2016.	A-2
3.	Sale Notice dated 21.09.2023.	A-3

¶168

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶169

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Dco.No.906 of 2016, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of Respondent Bank dated 24.05.2016.	R-1
2.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.1658 of 2016, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of Respondent bank dated 23.09.2016.	R-2
3.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.824 of 2017, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of respondent bank dated 28.06.2017.	R-3

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

4.	Agreement relating to Deposit of Title Deeds, registered as Doc.No.1242 of 2013, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of respondent bank dated 15.07.2023.	R-4
5.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.420 of 2020, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of respondent bank dated 04.03.2020.	R-5
6.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.635 of 2020, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of Respondent Bank dated 05.05.2020.	R-6
7.	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.907 of 2020, executed by 1^stand 2^ndapplicants in favour of respondent bank dated 17.06.2020.	R-7
8.	Demand Notice along with its return covers dated 02.05.2022.	R-8
9.	Paper Publication of Demand Notice both in English and Tamil daily dated 07.05.2022.	R-9
10.	Valuation Report dated 11.08.2023.	R-10
11.	Possession Notice dated 19.09.2022.	R-11
12.	Paper publication of Possession Notice both in English and Tamil daily dated 24.09.2022.	R-12
13.	Photo of Annexing the Possession Notice in the property dated 24.09.2022.	R-13
14.	Sale Notice dated 21.09.2023.	R-14
15.	Paper publication of Sale Notice both in English and Tamil daily dated 29.09.2023.	R-15
16.	Photo of Annexing the sale notice in the property.	R-16
17.	Sale Certificate in favour of Auction purchaser Mr. G. Balakrishnan dated 23.11.2023.	R-17
18.	Statement of Accounts.	R-18

¶174

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶175

Property Details -1

¶176

Item -1. All that part and parcel of the property at Dharmapuri Registration District, Karimangalam Sub Registrar District, Karimangalam Taluk, S.No.274/1A/1A, measuring an area of 720 Sq.ft., Bounded as Follows:

¶177

East of Property of Ganesan,

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

West of Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri Road,

¶182

North of Item -2,

¶183

South of 10 Feet Common Road,

¶184

Measuring East West 72 feet and North South 10 feet. Inclusive of mamool way rights.

¶185

Item -2. All that part and parcel of the property at Dharmapuri Registration District, Karimangalam Sub Registrar District, Karimangalam Taluk, S.No.274/1A1 & S.No.274/1A2, measuring an area of 599 ¼ Sq.ft., Bounded as Follows:

¶186

East of Property of Saravanan,

¶187

West of Property of Janaki, North of Property of KTP,

¶188

South of Property of Ganesan,

¶189

Measuring East West on both the sides 25 ½ feet and North on both the sides 23 ½ feet.

¶190

Item -3. All that part and parcel of the property at Dharmapuri Registration District, Karimangalam Sub Registrar District, Karimangalam Taluk, S.No.274/1A1, measuring an area of 92 ¾ Sq.ft., Bounded as Follows:

¶191

East of Property of Saravanan,

¶192

West of Property of Ganesan,

¶193

North of Property of Chakkaravarthy,

¶194

South of 10 Feet Common Road,

¶195

Measuring East West on both sides 3 ½ feet and North South on both the sides 26 ½ feet.

¶196

Property Details -2

¶197

Item -1. All that part and parcel of the property at Dharmapuri Registration District, Karimangalam Sub Registrar District, Karimangalam Taluk, SF.No.274/1A1A,

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

Measuring an area of 228 ¼ Sq.ft., Bounded as Follows:

¶202

East of Property of Ganesan,

¶203

West of Property of Krishnagiri Road,

¶204

North of Property of Ganesan,

¶205

South of Property of Chakkaravarthi,

¶206

Measuring East West 43 ½ feet and North South 5 ¼ feet.

¶207

Item -2. All that part and parcel of the property at Dharmapuri Registration District, Karimangalam Sub Registrar District, Karimangalam Taluk, SF.No.274/1A1A,

¶208

Measuring an area of 285 Sq.ft., Bounded as Follows: East of Property of Ganesan,

¶209

West of S.No.274/1A3,

¶210

North of Property of Janaki,

¶211

South of Property of Chakkaravarthi,

¶212

Measuring East West on both side 28 ½ feet and North South 10 feet.

¶213

Item -3. All that part and parcel of the property at Dharmapuri Registration District, Karimangalam Sub Registrar District, Karimangalam Taluk, SF.No.274/1A3, measuring an area of 206 ½ Sq.ft., Bounded as Follows:

¶214

East of Property of Ganesan, West of Krishnagiri to Dharmapuri Road, North of Property of Janaki,

¶215

South of Property of Ganesan,

¶216

Measuring East West on both the sides 43 ½ feet and North South both the sides 4 ¾ feet.

¶217

Item -4. All that part and parcel of the property at Dharmapuri Registration District, Karimangalam Sub Registrar District, Karimangalam Taluk, SF.No.274/1A1A, & 274/1A2 measuring an area of 583 Sq.ft., Bounded as Follows:

SA No.586/2023

16.09.2025

East of Property of Chakkaravarthi, West of Property of Ganesan, North of Property of Chakkaravarthi, South of 10 feet Common Road

¶222

Measuring East West 22 feet and North South 26 ½ feet.

¶223

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