Dismissed

Smt Ranjani Subramaniam v. State Bank of India

DRT12 Aug 2025SA/615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application challenging the auction sale notice. The Tribunal held that the secured creditor validly followed the statutory procedure, the applicant defaulted on the one-time settlement, and the right of redemption was extinguished upon auction notice publication.

What did the court decide?

The SA stands dismissed; interim order granted, if any, stands vacated.

Smt Ranjani Subramaniam versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 615 of 2023

¶8

Smt Ranjani Subramaniam W/o Mr.Subramaniam No.2/38 Railway colony, 3^rd street, Aminjikarai, Chennai- 600 029.

¶9

Mr.Subramaniam S/o Mr.Muthiah No.2/38 Railway colony, 3^rd street, Aminjikarai, Chennai- 600 029. ….Applicants

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, ARMB Branch, No.44, I Floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶12

*2. Kalaianjan Homes LLP No.17, Nelson Towers Nelson Manikam Road Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 ….Respondent

¶13

(Auction purchaser impleaded vide order dated 08.10.2024 in IA No.1856/23) Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicants : M/s Shanmitha. S Counsel for 1^st Respondent : Sh. N. Kishore Kumar Counsel for 2^nd Respondent : M/s R. Manibarathi

¶15

ORDER ON SA No. 615 of 2023

¶16

The Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 21.11.2023 under

¶17

sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

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].

¶22

The present SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 30.10.2023 issued by 1^st respondent bank fixing the sale on 24.11.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,96,14,383/- due as on 30.10.2023.

¶23

2. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶24

2.1 It is the case of the applicants that they have availed various credit facilities from respondent bank from the year 2013 to 2015 and offered their immovable property as security by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 05.05.2015 bearing Doc. No.1885 of 2015 before SRO, Anna Nagar. The applicants had closed all the facilities on 18.09.2017 and 19.09.2017 by paying the entire outstanding and additional pre-closure charges.

¶25

2.2 It is the further case of applicants that they had availed a Medium Term Loan of Rs.7 crores on 14.09.2017 and towards the facility of Rs.7 crores, no mortgage was created over the schedule properties nor any Memorandum of deposit of title deeds or extension of mortgage was executed with respect to the above said loan. It is further contended all of a sudden, the respondent had unilaterally increased the interest rate, which is against guidelines of the RBI. Due to serious health problem, the

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

livelihood of applicant suffered a set back and faced severe financial loss. Inspite of financial crunch, applicants continued to tender payments.

¶30

2.3. In spite of applicants making payments and the loan account was standard as on the date of declaration as NPA. However, respondent bank had decaled the loan account as NPA on 14.05.2019 without any intimation, which is against the prudential norms,

¶31

2.4 The respondent bank initiated SARFAESI measures and alleged to have issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 15.05.2019, which was never served on the applicants. Thereafter, respondent bank issued Possession Notice dated 16.07.2019 for an amount of Rs.6,99,51,792/-, which is not properly served nor affixed in the property.

¶32

2.5 It is further submitted that respondent bank has also filed OA No.866 of 2019 before DRT-II, which came to be allowed vide order dated 30.08.2022. The applicants time and again had made efforts to arrive at OTS with the bank and submitted many OTS proposals. However the respondent bank without even considering the proposal, has rejected the OTS proposals.

¶33

2.6 Further the respondent bank had been repeatedly issuing E-auction sale notices. The first sale notice dated 29.09.2021 was served on the applicants on 07.10.2021, scheduling sale to 16.11.2021. On receipt of sale notice, an OTS proposal dated 01.10.2021 was submitted to the

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

respondent bank with a upfront payment of Rs. 4.25 crores, however the respondent bank without even considering the proposal, had rejected it vide letter dated 01.10.2021 stating that the compromise offer is too low and requested to submit an increased compromise offer.

¶38

2.7 Challenging the Sale Notice dated 29.09.2021, the Applicant preferred SA 369/2021, wherein conditional order of stay was granted, which could not be complied within the time. The respondent bank proceeded with the E-Auction as per schedule and the sale failed as there were no bidders.

¶39

2.8 The second sale notice dated 03.12.2021 scheduling sale on 29.12.2021 was served on the applicants, which was again challenged in SA 464/2021. The SA was dismissed as infructuous by this Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 05.04.2022 as no sale took place pursuant to the sale notice.

¶40

2.9 Thereafter third sale notice dated 19.04.2022, scheduling the property to sale on 19.05.2022 was received by the applicants, which also failed for want of bidders. The fourth E-auction sale notice dated 02.06.2022 was served on the applicants fixing sale on 30.06.2022. On receipt of sale notice, an OTS proposal was submitted to the respondent bank with a proposal of upfront payment of Rs.5 crores. Based on the interest shown by the respondent bank and the assurance that the OTS would be considered if the offer amount was increased, the Applicants had made an initial deposit/upfront payment of Rs 25.0 Lakhs by RTGS on June 30^th , 2022 at 10.15 AM and further increased the compromise offer

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

to Rs 6.82 Crores, which is more than the reserve price fixed by the respondent bank. However contrary to the representations, the auction/sale was conducted as scheduled on 30.06.2022, completely disregarding the negotiated settlement.

¶45

2.10 It is contended that on enquiry, the respondent bank has informed that the successful bidder had quoted a sum of Rs.7.1 crores for the schedule mentioned property, whereas the Applicants on 02.06.2022 offered an OTS proposal proposing to pay a sum of Rs.7.20 crores within a period of 30 days. As there was no response from the respondent bank, the Applicant preferred SA 351/2022 before DRT-II, Chennai, challenging the Sale conducted on 30.06.2022 wherein order of status quo was granted and the SA came to be transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TSA 165/2023. The successful bidder had not paid the bid amount and the sale itself was invalid. Since the Applicants were under negotiation with the respondent bank to settle the loan account, the Applicants had withdrawn the TSA 165/2023, which came to dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.07.2023.

¶46

2.11 The applicant submitted OTS proposal dated 16.09.2023 with an offer to pay Rs.8.30 crores along with Rs.7 lakhs as full and final settlement of the loan account to be paid within a period of 90. The OTS proposal was accepted by the respondent bank vide letter dated 20.09.2023 and the respondent bank vide letter dated 21.09.2023 setting out the terms and conditions of settlement had stated that the balance

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

OTS amount of Rs.8.23 Crores is to be paid before 30.09.2023 i.e. in lesser than 10 days. Subsequent to acceptance of the OTS proposal, the Applicants had paid a sum of Rs.83 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 54.40 lakhs, thus total sum of Rs.1.40 Crores has been paid by the Applicants towards the OTS. The respondent bank had orally agreed to provide more time for making the OTS payment and the Respondent bank had not rejected the OTS proposal and continued to accept payments from the Applicants after 30.09.2023 towards the OTS. However, the respondent bank contrary to their representation, went ahead and issued an E-Auction sale notice on 30.06.2022 scheduling E-Auction on 24.11.2023.

¶51

2.12 It is further contended that the respondent bank is not entitled to enforce security interest under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act as the respondent can only enforce security interest if the borrower makes a default on repayment of a secured debt. Since the alleged debt is not a secured debt, and there is no security interest created in favour of the respondent. Hence the bank is not is not entitled to proceed against the schedule mentioned and all measures taken under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act in bringing the applicants’ property to auction is void and the alleged sale is liable to be set aside.

¶52

2.13 The applicants have raised the following grounds in the SA:

¶53

(i) Section 13(2) Demand Notice is not served on the applicants depriving the applicants right to raise objections as provided under Section 13(3A) of the Act.

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

(ii) No security interest is created over the schedule property in respect of Loan A/c No.37165000328 and as such it is not a secured asset to proceed against under the SARFAESI Act.

¶58

(iii) Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules can be invoked only for sale of immovable secured asset and impugned E-auction sale notice in respect of a property which is not a secured asset over which no security interest has been created, is liable to be set aside

¶59

(iv) The possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was not affixed at a conspicuous place on the property as mandated under the Act.

¶60

(v) The impugned sale notice dated 30.10.2023 does not specify the details of the secured debt for recovery of which the property is to be sold, does not specify the time and place of public auction and as such suffers from irregularities and liable to be set aside.

¶61

(vi) The valuation done by the Respondent bank for the schedule properties is totally illogical and arbitrary of valuation undertaken by the bank.

¶62

(vii) The reserve price of the property has been drastically reduced in every sale notice.

¶63

(viii) No fresh valuation has been obtained prior to the sale.

¶64

(ix) Payments made by the Applicant in due course and post NPA

¶65

have not been appropriated or reflected in the notices issued thereafter.

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

(x) Rule 8(6)(b) and Rule 8(7) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules have not been followed.

¶70

(xi) The description of the schedule mentioned property varies in all the notices. The property is a commercial property in which Canara Bank is a tenant. The same is also reflected in the valuation report by the respondent bank. However the respondent bank has not mentioned any of these encumbrances known to them, in the sale notice and as such the sale notice is in violation of Rule 8 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules. On these grounds the applicant prays to set aside the Sale Notice 30.10.2023 issued by 1^st respondent bank fixing the sale on 24.11.2023.

¶71

3. Counter of the 1^st respondent bank:

¶72

3.1 The Respondent denies all the allegations made in the Application as false, frivolous, repetitive, vexatious. The auction was held on 24.11.2023 and there was a successful bidder for a sum of

¶73

Rs.7,39,00,000/-. In view of the interim order dated 24-11-2023, deferring confirmation of sale, the Respondent Bank had not proceeded further.

¶74

3.2 It is submitted that the Respondent Bank had issued 5 sale notices till now and the Applicants have also filed 4 SAs as detailed in the counter, two of earlier SAs were dismissed as infructuous and one SA as withdrawn by applicant.

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

3.3 The Respondents submits that Applicants had closed the earlier loans by obtaining the Loan which is the present subject matter. The Respondent Bank had filed O.A. No. 866 of 2019 for recovery of its dues under the RDB Act, 1993 before DRT II, Chennai and the same was ordered on 30-08-2022, which has become final, permitting the respondent bank to recover the decreed amount by Sale of Mortgaged property. Hence the allegation that Respondent Bank has no security interest is without any substance and hollow pleadings. On one had the Applicants had admitted the Loan and Mortgage in Para 3 and repeatedly came out with OTS to repay the Loan and clear the Mortgage and on the other hand they are denying the same falsely.

¶79

3.4 The Applicants never repaid the instalments regularly right from the inception, hence the Applicants loan account in the Books of account of the Bank has been duly classified as NPA on 14-05-2019 as per RBI norms. The Respondent Bank never increased the instalment period nor imposed the flouting rate of interest higher than those agreed. The Respondent duly followed the rules and regulations and also the terms of the Loan Agreement and it is the Applicant who failed to pay the installments regularly and thereby increased the outstanding amount.

¶80

3.5 The Respondent Bank had followed the statutory provisions and procedures and issued proper and valid notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFESI Act. The Respondent Bank had issued the impugned Sale Notice dated 30.10.2023, which was duly served on the

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

applicants on 02.11.2023. The Respondent Bank also caused publication of said Notice in two widely circulated News Papers namely “TIMES OF INDIA” and “DINAKARAN” dated 07.11.2023, affixed Sale Notice in the Property and have produced documents in proof of above service are filed herewith in typed set of documents.

¶85

3.6 The Applicants gave a OTS proposal letter on 16.09.2023 expressing their willingness to settle the account for an amount of Rs.8,30,00,000/-. The Respondent had accepted the same with the condition that the said amount is to be paid on or before 30.09.2023 and also to pay an initial upfront amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as per their request instead of usual 5% for any OTS (which would have been Rs.41,50,000). The Applicants failed to comply with the OTS terms and sought 90 days time via email dated 27.09.2023 seeking time of 90 days and assuring to pay 10% of the compromise amount on or before 30.09.2023. The OTS had failed due to the non-payment of the agreed amount by the applicants which the Respondent Bank communicated vide e-mail dated 10.10.2023.

¶86

3.7 The Applicants had sent an E-mail on 12.10.2023, offered to pay Rs.1,50,00,000/- on or before 27.10.2023 and remaining balance of compromise amount on or before 27.11.2023 which was accepted by the Respondent by E- Mail to the Applicants/Borrowers on 18.10.2023. Again, the Applicants failed to comply with the terms as agreed and the same had failed.

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

3.8 Hence, the Respondent issued the present impugned sale notice on 30-10-2023 scheduling Auction on 24-11-2023 and for which there is also a bidder. The Applicant again sent mail dated 31.10.2023 requesting another 10 days’ time for payment. The Respondent Bank as a final chance to the Applicants/Borrowers and to recover the outstanding informed the Applicants on 02-11-2023 that if they pay the agreed amount on or before 05-11-2023, the Respondent would withdraw the auction, which the applicant did not comply.

¶91

3.9 It is contended by the respondent bank that the payment of about Rs.26,67,000/- (up to 30.09.2023) is towards the OTS and Applicants failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the OTS. The Respondent had recovered further money as normal recovery unrelated to the OTS. The sum of Rs.48,23,000/- paid on 13.10.2023 was for extension of OTS proposal. The allegations that the Applicants themselves had paid the amounts are not well founded.

¶92

3.10 It is further submitted that the value of the property had been fixed by following due procedures. It is matter of record that auction had failed repeatedly as there were no bidders and Respondent Bank had finally found a bidder as stated above. The Respondent had obtained two Valuation Reports, the copies are filed along with typed set of documents.

¶93

3.11 The Respondent Bank states that there is already a bidder for the property as stated supra and the bank had also identified other assets

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

and revenue sources of the Applicants which they shall proceed against under the Recovery Certificate (TRC 737 / 2023). In view of the various developments as stated the Respondent Bank cannot consider or offers any one-time settlement after the auction. It is settled legal position that under amended Section 13 (8) of the SARFESI Act, the Right of redemption is extinguished on publication of the Sale cum Auction notice and it is also repeatedly upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶98

3.12 The Respondent Bank submits that the Applicant is a chronic defaulter and cannot restrain the creditor from exercising their rights for due recovery of the amounts advanced. This Respondent as a secured creditor had invoked the provisions of the Securitisation Act based on the mortgage created by deposit of title deeds. The Respondent Bank after complying with all the legal requirements brought the secured property for sale.

¶99

3.13 The Respondent Bank had received an email on 29.11.2023 from the Applicants seeking extension of OTS which is not in force any more as stated supra and the Respondent Bank had also issued a reply rejecting the offer on the same day.

¶100

4. Counter of 2^nd respondent (Auction purchaser):

¶101

4.1 The 2^nd Respondent, who is auction purchaser, submitted that the Applicants availed certain loan facility from the 1^st Respondent Bank, as security for the repayment of the said loans, the Applicants executed certain loan documents and mortgaged their immoveable properties.

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

After availing these loans, the Applicants have defaulted to repay the loan amount, therefore the 1^st Respondent invoking under the SARFAESI Act against the applicants herein and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, dated 15.05.2019, to the Applicants. Thereafter the 1^st Respondent issued Possession Notice dated 16.07.2019 u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, and demanded for a sum of Rs.6,99,51,792/-. After issuing the possession notice, the Applicants failed and neglected to repay the said loan dues. Therefore the 1^st Respondent issued several E-Auction sale notice against the mortgaged immoveable properties, thereafter again the 1^st Respondent have issued E-Auction sale notice dated 30.10.2023, and fixed the sale on 24.11.2023, and reserve price was Rs.7,37,00,000/- in the above E-Auction sale.

¶106

4.2 It is submitted that 2^nd Respondent saw the said E-Auction Sale Notice in newspaper and was willing to purchase the subject property. Therefore the 2^nd Respondent participated in the above E-Auction and deposited EMD for a sum of Rs.73,70,000/- and submitted the application for a sum of Rs.7,39,00,000/-. The 1^st Respondent declared the 2^nd Respondent as a successful bidder in the above E-Auction sale. 2^nd respondent paid the entire amount of Rs.7,39,00,000/- as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the E-Auction sale notice.

¶107

4.3 Subsequently, after receipt of the entire e-auction sale consideration for a sum of Rs.7,39,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores ThirtyNine Lakhs Only), the 1^st Respondent issued sale certificate on

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

11.12.2023 in favour of the 2^nd Respondent and the said sale certificate was registered on 23.01.2024, as Document No.334 of 2024 at SubRegistrar Office, Anna Nagar by the 2^nd Respondent. Ever since the Sale Certificate was issued and registered, the 2^nd respondent has been the absolute owner, and title over the said property. The actions of the 1^st respondent bank invoked under the SARFAESI Act are accordance with law. Hence the Applicant has no locus standi to file the above application against the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 30.06.2022, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶112

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused records of the case.

¶113

5.1 The applicant admittedly is the borrower, who has availed various credit facilities i.e., two Housing Loans and two Car Loans in 2013 and 2015 respectively. The applicant had created the mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 05.05.2015, registered as Document No.1885/2015 before SRO, Anna Nagar and also closed all the loan accounts on 18.09.2017 and 19.09.2017. The applicant has also availed additional loan facility of Medium Term Loan of Rs.7 crores to run family business vide account bearing loan A/c No.37165000328, however contends has not mortgaged his property as collateral security towards this facility.

¶114

5.2 Due to default in repayment, the bank has classified the loan account as NPA on 14.05.2019 as per the RBI guidelines and have initiated the measures under the SARFAESI Act by issuing Section 13(2)

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

Demand Notice and Section 13(4) Possession Notice. It is manifest from records that as the applicant did not liquidate the liability as per the statutory notice, the bank has proceeded further and issued the first Sale Notice dated 29.09.2021, which was challenged by applicant in SA No.369 of 2021, which came to be dismissed on 24.02.2022 as infructuous.

¶119

5.3 The applicant has also challenged the second Sale Notice dated 03.12.2021 in SA No.464 of 2021, which is also rendered infructuous and dismissed on 05.04.2022. The applicant had challenged the 4^th Sale Notice in TSA No.165 of 2023 (SA No.351 of 2022), which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 12.07.2023. The present SA is filed challenging the 5^th Sale Notice dated 30.10.2023.

¶120

5.4 It is an admitted fact that the bank has issued 5 Sale Notices in efforts to recover huge outstanding dues and admittedly applicant has filed four SAs and frustrated the measures taken by the respondent bank. It is seen from the records that the bank has already filed OA No.866 of 2019, which came to be allowed on 30.08.2022, upholding the loan and mortgage created by the applicant in favour of the respondent bank.

¶121

5.5 It is a matter of record that as and when the respondent bank has initiated the measures in selling the property, the applicant had approached the respondent bank with OTS proposal. Evidently, the applicant has given four OTS proposals dated 16.12.2020, 01.10.2021, 29.06.2022 and 16.09.2023 and applicant has failed to adhere to the OTS terms and conditions and have paid only portion of the OTS settlement

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

and hence the OTS failed due to non-payment of the agreed amount by the respondent bank.

¶126

5.6 The present SA is filed challenging the 5^th Sale Notice on the contention that the Term Loan of Rs. 7 crores is not secured by mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The said contention is countered by the respondent bank by filing additional typed set, wherein it is seen from the confirmation letter dated 14.09.2017, the applicant has extended the mortgage created by confirmation letter dated 19.09.2017 towards the loan account No.37165000328, which is produced and marked as evidence as Ex A-4 in the OA proceeding. It is seen that the mortgage is extended towards the credit facilities of Rs.7 crores by the applicant herein. Hence the contention that there was no mortgage towards the new credit facility of Rs. 7 crores and bank cannot initiate action under SARFAESI Act fails.

¶127

5.7 The further contention that the Section 13(2) Demand Notice is not served is also countered by the respondent bank by producing copy of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice along with postal covers for having sent the same. It is also admitted that the applicant has also challenged the Section 14 order passed in Crl.M.P. No.4966 of 2019 in SA No.53 of 2020, wherein the same contention was taken that there was no mortgage for Rs.7 crores loan. SA No.53 of 2020 came to be dismissed on 31.05.2022. It is also seen in para 6 of the order that respondent had issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) on 15.05.2019, after declaring the account as

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

NPA on 14.05.2019 and as the Section 13(2) Demand Notice was duly served as per the acknowledgment cards produced on 16.05.2019. The contention raised with regard to the issuance of Possession Notice was not contended in the SA, which has been duly countered by the respondent bank by producing returned covers, paper publication of Possession Notice and affixture. Thus the Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2022 had held that the actions of the respondent bank are in due compliance of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and accordingly SA was dismissed.

¶132

5.8 The other contention as raised by the applicant is that the respondent bank had issued the Sale Notice when the OTS proposal was under consideration. However, as the applicant did not comply with the terms of OTS proposal for more than two to three times and not complying with the conditions and not improving the OTS offer, the bank has proceeded with the sale of the secured asset.

¶133

5.9 It is contended that the present impugned Sale Notice dated 30.11.2023 does not specify the details of the secured debt for recovery and suffers from irregularity. However, on perusal of the Sale Notice dated 30.11.2023, it is seen that the Sale Notice is issued by the Authorised Officer, giving details of the borrower and the guarantors, details of the property which is clearly described with proper identification. The terms and conditions of the sale also specify the date and time of the property, which is being sold, the issuance of the Demand

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

Notice dated 15.05.2019, Possession Notice dated 16.07.2019 and property being sold on 24.11.2023.

¶138

5.10 It is further seen that the Sale Notice describes the total outstanding due and deposit of Earnest Money; the time and manner of payment is also described. Further, the date and time of inspection is also clearly mentioned. Though the applicant has taken a vague contention that the Sale Notice does not specify the date and time of sale and it suffers from irregularity, does not sustain. In fact the Sale Notice dated 30.11.2023, clearly describes mandatory requirements in issuing the Sale Notice, which is also published in their respective website.

¶139

5.11 Yet another contention raised by the applicant is that the valuation of the property obtained by respondent bank in 2015 and the property valued at 2017 varies a lot. It is contended that the market value of the property is Rs.12 crores and reserve price is fixed at Rs.7,80,00,000/-. Further in the consequent Sale Notice, it is reduced to Rs.7 crores and from Rs. 7 crores, it is reduced to Rs.6,65,00,000/-i.e., by reducing Rs.35,000/- and in the present impugned Sale Notice dated 30.10.2023, the reserve price is fixed at 7,37,00,000/- which is under valued. It is admitted fact that the applicant is frustrating the measures more specifically when the e-auction was conducted by the respondent bank.

¶140

5.12 As evidently seen, the impugned sale notice is the 5^th sale and respondent bank as secured creditor has been enforcing the security available to them for public auction. Hence the reserve price is reduced

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

as they were not able to get bidder for the first reserve price of Rs.7,80,00,000/-. Even otherwise the contention that it was mandatory for the bank to obtain fresh valuation also does not stand, as the bank has produced valuation report at page No.34 to 79 of typed set of documents, which fairly reflects that the valuation is obtained from approved valuer on 27.07.2023 and the second valuation on 26.07.2023. Hence the contention that the Respondent bank have undervalued the property cannot sustain

¶145

5.13 Further the applicant has not produced any valuation from any approved valuer to counter that the reserve price fixed is low. Applicants had only relied on the valuation reports filed by the respondent bank. In absence of any comparative valuation by two independent valuer the contention as raised would not withstand.

¶146

5.14 After obtaining valuation report, bank has issued Sale notice dated 30.10.2023 fixing the sale on 24.11.2023 and the Sale notice is also affixed on the property, which is evident from the photograph of affixture produced by the Respondent bank at Page No.32-33 of their typed set and published in two newspapers ‘Dinakaran’ and ‘The Times of India’ dated 07.11.2023 as evidenced from pages 30 and 31 of respondent bank’s typed set. The Sale notice is served on the applicants, affixed on

¶147

the property and published in two Newspapers as mandated under the Rule 8(9). In fact applicant has not made out any irregularities in the

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

issuance of statutory notices and also in conducting the Auction sale as per the Acts and Rules made there under.

¶152

5.15 It is also pertinent to note that the applicant has initiated the OTS settlement vide letter dated 16.09.2023, admitted to pay an amount of Rs.8,30,00,000/- towards the outstanding due amount which is duly considered by the Respondent bank. However, the applicants could not comply with the Terms and Conditions of the OTS inspite of upfront payment of Rs.7 lakhs, applicants defaulted in the OTS, hence the bank had cancelled the OTS vide letter dated 10.10.2023 and proceeded further in bringing the property to Auction.

¶153

5.16 Thus it is evident that the Respondent bank as a secured creditor has initiated the measures as required and followed all the procedures as mandated under the Acts. As the applicants did not comply with the OTS Terms and conditions and failed to repay the entire outstanding amount due as per the Section 13(8) of the Act. The bank has proceeded further and sold the property in Auction to the highest bidder who is the 2^nd respondent here in. The Respondent bank also issued Sale Certificate in favor of the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent paid an amount of Rs.7,39,00,000/- and 1^st respondent bank issued sale certificate on 11.12.2023 in favour of 2^nd respondent, which was also registered on 23.01.2024, as Document No.334 of 2024 before SRO, Anna Nagar.

¶154

5.17 It is pertinent to mention that the Applicants had lost their right of redemption as per S.13[8] of the Act. In this regard this Tribunal places

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

reliance on the judgment of t he Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “Celir LLP versus Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd.” considered the right of redemption under S.13[8] after the amendment has held that 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 t he failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues before the publication of the auction

¶159

notice as per Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act constituted an "extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage”.

¶160

5.18 Thus, it is evident that the applicant has not made out a case to interfere with the E-auction sale notice dated 30.10.2023. On the other hand the respondent bank had established the due compliance measures taken and the Sale Certificate is also issued.

¶161

5.19 The applicant, having lost right of the redemption, have frustrated

¶162

the matter without any bonafides, which is highly depreciated. Before concluding the Tribunal reminds itself to the challenges to the measures

¶163

made by the applicant which are as under:

¶164

S. No.	Case Details	Details and Particulars
1.	S.A. No.53 of 2020 on the file of the Ld. DRT II at Chennai, against the Section 14 proceedings.	The same was dismissed on 31-05-2022.
2.	S.A. No. 369 of 2021, on the file of Learned DRT II at Chennai against 1^st Sale Notice 29-09-2021.	The same was dismissed on 24-02-2022 as infructuous.

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

3.	S.A. No. 464 of 2021, on the file of Ld. DRT II at Chennai against 2^ndSale Notice 03.12.2021.	The same was dismissed on 05.04.2022 as infructuous.
4.	T.S.A. No. 165 of 2023 (Originally S.A. No.351 of 2022 on the file of the Ld. DRT II at Chennai) against 4^thSale Notice.	The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.07.2023.
5.	S.A. No.615 of 2023, present Appeal and pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal against the 5^thSale Notice	The present SA
6.	M.A.No.97,98,99 of 2025 in S.A Dairy No.1542 of 2024, on the file of DRT III at Chennai.	MA Pending.
7.	Counter and Objections in TRC No.737 of 2023 in O.A.No.866 of 2019 on the file of Recovery Officer, DRT III at Chennai.	Dismissed.
8.	M.A’s in TRC No.737 of 2023 in O.A. No.866 of 2019, on the file of Recovery Officer, DRT III at Chennai.	Pending.
9.	W.P. No.24247 of 2024, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.	Dismissed as withdrawn.

¶169

5.20 The applicant though has offered OTS proposal as and when sale

¶170

notices were issued, did not comply with the terms of OTS which highlights that the applicant is not keen in settling the matter and is only interested in frustrating the measures taken by the bank under the Act.

¶171

5.21 On the other hand the respondent as secured creditor has taken

¶172

under the Act by following the procedures as required under the Act and Rules and even has considered the OTS proposal of the applicant as and when submitted.

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

5.22 Therefore, the Tribunal concludes the measure taken by the respondent bank are in accordance in issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 15.05.2019; Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 16.07.2019; sale notice dated 30.10.2023; sale held on 24.11.2023 and sale certificate dated 11.12.2023 as valid notices and has followed the procedures as enumerated under the Acts and Rules made thereon and the same are held as valid measurers.

¶177

Resultantly the present SA 615/2023 stands dismissed. Interim order granted, if any stands vacated and pending IA’s are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to cost.

¶178

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

¶179

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 12^th day of August, 2025)

¶180

ANNEXURES

¶181

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶182

Sl. No.		Des	cription of	Docu	ments	Document No.
1.	Sanction 29.08.20	of 13	Car Loan	A/c	No.33250666923	A-1
2.	Sanction 05.09.20	of 13	Car Loan	A/c	No.33272081859	A-2
3.	Sanction 31.03.20	of 15	Loan	A/c	No.34842172345	A-3
4.	Sanction 04.05.20	of 15	Loan	A/c	No.34908694371	A-4

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

5.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed bearing	A-5
	Doc No.1885/2015 05.05.2015
6.	Sanction of Loan A/c No.37165000328 14.09.2017	A-6
7.	Closure of Loan A/c No.34842172345 18.09.2017	A-7
8.	Closure of Loan A/c No.34908694371 18.09.2017	A-8
9.	Closure of Car Loan A/c No.33250666923 19.09.2017	A-9
10.	Closure of Car Loan A/c No.33272081859 19.09.2017	A-10
11.	Valuation report of Schedule Mentioned Property 25.02.2015	A-11
12.	Valuation report of Schedule Mentioned Property 02.09.2017	A-12
13.	Account statement from 01.09.2018 to 13.05.2019	A-13
14.	Account statement from 14.05.2019 to 31.03.2020	A-14
15.	Order passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in S.A.No.53 of 2020 20.02.2020	A-15
16.	1^stOTS proposal by Applicant 16.12.2020	A-16
17.	Rejection of OTS proposal 16.12.2020	A-17
18.	1^stE-Auction Sale notice 29.09.2021	A-18
19.	2^ndOTS proposal by Applicant 01.10.2021	A-19
20.	Rejection of OTS proposal 01.10.2021	A-20
21.	Guideline value and property valuation from tnreginet.gov.in 02.11.2021	A-21
22.	Interim Order passed in S.A.369 of 2021 15.11.2021	A-22
23.	2^ndSale auction Notice 03.12.2021	A-23
24.	Interim Order passed on S.A.464 of 2021 27.12.2021	A-24
25.	3^rdAuction Sale notice 19.04.2022	A-25
26.	4^thAuction Sale notice 02.06.2022	A-26
27.	OTS Rejection Letter 29.06.2022	A-27
28.	Letter from the Applicants with an enhanced OTS Amount 02.07.2022	A-28
29.	Interim Order passed in S.A.No.351 of 2022 13.07.2022	A-29
30.	Order passed in T.S.A.No.165 of 2023 (Transferred from DRT-II in S.A.No.351 of 2022) 12.07.2023	A-30
31.	OTS proposal letter from the Applicants with an offer of Rs.8.30 Crores. 16.09.2023	A-31

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

32.	DD given by the applicants for upfront payment 16.09.2023	A-32
33.	OTS Acceptance letter from the respondent bank 20.09.2023	A-33
34.	OTS approval Terms and conditions of the Respondent Bank 21.09.2023	A-34
35.	Mail sent by the Respondent Bank 30.09.2023	A-35
36.	DD given by the applicants for the OTS 05.10.2023	A-36
37.	5^th Sale Auction Notice (impugned order) 30.10.2023	A-37
38.	Bank Account statement of the applicants vide Bank A/c No.39203262594 Nov 2023	A-38
39.	Bank Account statement of the applicants vide Bank A/c No.37165000328 Nov 2023	A-39
40.	Bank Account statement of the applicants vide Bank A/c No.36951407665 Nov 2023	A-40
	Additional typed set of documents– II
41.	Daily order passed by DRT-II in SA No.53 of 2020	A-41
42.	Final order passed by DRT-II in SA No.53 of 2020	A-42
	Additional typed set of documents– III
43.	Valuation Report issued by V. Dinakaran & Associates dated 25.02.2015	A-43
44.	Valuation Report issued by Dr. A. Shoba dated 02.09.2017	A-44
45.	Memorandum of Zonal Credit Committee Zone-II SBI dated 13.09.2017	A-45
46.	Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 05.05.2019	A-46
47.	Possession Notice dated 16.07.2019	A-47
48.	Valuation report of D. Parthasarathy Associates LLP	A-48
49.	Valuation report issued by Dr. A. Shoba	A-49
50.	Valuation report issued by R.S. Associates	A-50
51.	Valuation report of D. Parthasarathy Associates LLP	A-51

¶191

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶192

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Final Order in the O.A. No.866 of 2019 (DRT-II)	R-1
	dated 30.08.2022

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

2.	T.S.A. No.165 of 2023 (Originally S.A. No.351 of 2022 on the file of the Learned DRT II at Chennai) Final Order 12.07.2023	R-2
3.	Sale Issue notice to respondent bank. Private notice and notce by E-mail is also permitted. Call on issued under SARFAESI Act for E- Auction Sale of Immovable Property 30.10.2023	R-3
4.	Acknowledgement Card for Proof of Service of Sale Issue notice to respondent bank. Private notice and notce by E-mail is also permitted. Call on as served 02.11.2023	R-4
5.	Paper Publication made in Dhinakaran Tamil News Paper for Sale Issue notice to respondent bank. Private notice and notce by E-mail is also permitted. Call on 07.11.2023	R-5
6.	Paper Publication made in Times of India, English News Paper for Sale Issue notice to respondent bank. Private notice and notce by E- mail is also permitted. Call on 07.11.2023	R-6
7.	Photographs in proof of Affixture.	R-7
8.	Valuation Reports	R-8
9.	Email sent by the Applicants for extension of OTS to the Respondent Bank 29.11.2023	R-9
10.	Reply to the above Email sent by the Respondent Bank 29.11.2023	R-10
	Additional typed set of documents
11.	Confirmation Letter for creation of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 14.09.2017	R-11
12.	Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 15.05.2019	R-12
13. 14.	Order in SA No.53 of 2020 dated 31.05.2022 Statement of Accounts	R-13 R-14

¶197

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT

¶198

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Sale Certificate infavour of 2^ndRespondent	R-1
	23.01.2024

¶199

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶200

All that piece and parcel of land measuring an extent of One ground 1587 Sq ft., (Total 3987 Sq.ft) bearing Plot No.3677, “P” Block,

SA No.615/2023

12.08.2025

old door No.32, New door No.1, 20^th street, Arignar Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040, comprised in R.S.No.30 part and 31 part of Mullam village, together with the Building constructed thereon measuring an extent of Rs.1,100 Sq ft as per sale deed and 4814 Sq ft as per site and bounded on the

¶205

North by: 30 feet road

¶206

East by : 30 feet road

¶207

South by: Plot no.3693

¶208

West by : Plot no.3678

¶209

Measuring on the North 45 feet, on the East 75 feet, on the South 50 feet and on the West 80 feet with N.E.Splay 7 feet in all measuring One ground and 1587 Sq.ft., or thereabouts and together with the house construced thereon measuring 1100 Sq.ft., and within the Registration Sub District of Anna Nagar and Registration District of Central Chennai with all its easementary and appurtenance rights. (As per Doc.No.31/2006 dated 04.01.2006)

¶210

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

Smt Ranjani Subramaniam v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ranjani Subramaniam v. State Bank of India

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

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Nowsea Traders

State Bank of India versus Saravanan

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Mass Super Market

Punjab National Bank versus Latha

Indian Bank versus Tajkhan

Indian Overseas Bank versus Pandora Foods Rep By Bhuvanesh And Other