Dismissed

K Pandiyammal v. Union Bank of India

DRT27 May 2025SA/624/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal in Madurai considered an application to set aside a Possession Notice under the SARFAESI Act. The Applicant alleged procedural irregularities and failure to serve notices, while the Bank claimed strict adherence to procedure via public notice and photo evidence. The Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant's claims.

What did the court decide?

Application SA No. 624/2023 dismissed with no costs pending the Applicant's compliance with the conditional order.

K Pandiyammal versus Union Bank of India — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.624/2023

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI

¶4

DATED THIS 27^th DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶6

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶7

SA No. 624/2023

¶8

K. Pandiyammal, W/o. (Late) P. Murugan, 2/313, Muthuramalingapuram Colony, Pallapatti Road, Sivakasi – 626 289.

¶9

--- Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, No. 51, Rosary Church Building, Town Hall Road, Madurai – 625 001.

¶12

--- Defendant Bank

¶13

Appearance of Advocates: Mr. M. Arunachalam ---- Counsel for the Applicant Mr. R. Pandivel ---- Counsel for the Defendant Bank

¶14

This SARFAESI Application was heard in the presence of Counsels for the Applicant and the Defendant Bank and fixed for passing final order before me and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

1 . This Application has been filed u/s. 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the Applicant praying that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Order to set aside the Possession Notice dated 25.09.2023 issued by the Defendant Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

SA No.624/2023

¶19

2 . The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicant are as follows:-

¶20

The Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant's husband P. Murugan, who is a Corporation Contractor in Sivakasi area, approached the Defendant for availing certain credit facility to improve the business. The 1^st property in the description of properties belonged to the said P. Murugan and the rest of the property belongs to the Applicant. The Defendant Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- towards Over Draft Loan to Applicant's husband in the year 2017. The Applicant agreed to stand as Guarantor for the credit facility availed by the Applicant's husband. And, the Applicant's husband P. Murugan died on 05.04.2020 leaving behind him Applicant and her two children as his legal representatives, which was informed to the Defendant Bank by the Applicant. Even after the death of Applicant's husband, Applicant was servicing the principal and interest very promptly and regularly and so far, paid a sum of Rs. 27,42,653/-.

¶21

It is further submitted that all of a sudden, Applicant was shocked and surprised to receive a Demand Notice dated 07.07.2023 U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. Applicant also approached the Defendant Bank and sought an explanation with regard to the said Demand Notice but the Defendant was not in a position to explain as to why the said Demand Notice was issued to the Applicant. And then, the Bank had issued a Possession Notice dated 25.09.2023 U/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and also taken symbolic possession of the Property, which is illegal and blatant violation of the provisions under SARFAESI Act and Rules and is liable to be set aside. The Defendant has not affixed the Possession Notice on the property and failed to publish the said Possession Notice in two newspapers as per SARFAESI Act and Rules framed there under.

¶22

It is further submitted that the Defendant issued 13(2) notice and two notices informing about sale for all the properties mentioned in the description of properties whereas the Bank issued Possession Notice for first property mentioned in the description of properties. In brief without giving 13(4) notice for second property in the description of properties, Defendant issued two notices informing about sale dated 13.10.2023 for all properties in the description of properties. Further it is submitted that the Defendant Bank trying to sell the properties worth Rs. 5 crores to recover a debt of Rs. 86,99,441/-, which is arbitrary & illegal.

¶23

It is further submitted that a very huge amount is still outstanding from the Corporation, Sivakasi for works already completed by the Applicant's husband. Despite sincere efforts to receive the outstanding

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

SA No.624/2023

¶26

amount due from the Corporation, Sivakasi is not yet settled. The Applicant is struggling hard to run the family with her children without any sufficient income. Further it is submitted that even after knowing the above facts and with an intention to exert pressure on the Applicant, Defendant has filed OA No. 385 of 2023 against Applicant and her children before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence, all the measures initiated by the Defendants suffer from several severe irregularities and illegalities and is liable to be set aside.

¶27

Hence, this SARFAESI Application is preferred on the followings among other:-

¶28

Main Grounds :-

¶29

The Defendant has not furnished the Statement of Accounts in oral to enable the Applicant to satisfy the liability due to the Defendant.

¶30

The Defendant has not given proper entries of various payments made by the Applicant. The Interest charged by the Defendant is not in accordance with the RBI's Guidelines.

¶31

The Defendant failed to publish the 13(2), 13(4) & failed to affix 13(4) Notice on the property and failed to serve 13(2) & 13(4) notices to all the parties concerned.

¶32

The classification of borrower's account as NPA itself is invalid.

¶33

The Reserve price fixed for the secured assets is very low price comparing to the market value prevailing at present.

¶34

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

¶35

Property No. 1

¶36

All that piece and parcel of the land with residential building there on. In the house site No. 3 measuring East West 8.0 metre on the north, 8.0 metre on the South, South North 13.70 metre on the West, 13.70 metre on the East totally 109.60 sqmetre lies in Ward-C, Block No. 3, Town Survey No. 168 as per patta in Ward C, Block No. 11, Town Survey No. 155, Door No. 357 with electric service connection no. 07.239.001.95 with municipal water tap connection no. 11305 in Gnanagiri Road, Sivakasi Town within Sivakasi Municipal Limits, Sivakasi SubRegistration District and Virudhunagar Registration District with following boundaries:-

¶37

West : House No.4 East : House No.2 North : 6 metre width East West common road South : Private Land

Property No. 2

Page 3 of 8

SA No.624/2023

Item No. 1

All that piece and parcel of the land in house site plot no. 9A measuring East West 50 feet on the North, 50 feet on the South, South North 68.25 feet on the West, 105.50 feet on the East totally 4243.75 sq feet = 471.5 sq yard out of 2 acre 07 cent which lies on the Western side of the total extent of 2.52.0 hectare = 6 acre 22 cent i.e., 1.68.0 hectare lies in Ayan Punja survey no. 1500 and 0.84.0 hectare lies in Ayan Punja survey no. 1507 in patta no. 1285 divided into housing plots names as 'Sri Ayyappan Nagar' having common pathway and cart track rights in keelathiruthanal Village, Pallapatti Panchayat, Sivakasi Panchayat Union, Thiruthangal Sub-Registration District and Virudhunagar Registration District with following boundaries,

¶43

West : Plot No. 10 purchased by S. Rani East : Second item of the property and Plot No. 9C North : Sivakasi to Pallapatti Road South : Plot Nos. 13,14 and 15 owned by S. Pushpavalli

¶44

Item No. 2

¶45

All that piece and parcel of the land in house site plot no. 9B in triangle shape measuring East West 0 feet on the North, 51 feet on the South, South North 59.75 feet on the West, 87 feet on the East totally 1483 sq feet =164.77 sq yard out of 2 acre 07 cent which lies on the Western side of the total extent of 2.52.0 hectare=6 acre 22 cent i.e., 1.68.0 hectare lies in Ayan Punja Suvey No. 1500 and 0.84.0 hectare lies in Ayan Punja survey no. 1507 in patta no. 1285 divided into housing plots named as 'Sri Ayyappan Nagar' having common pathway and cart track rights in keelathiruthanal Village, Pallapatti Panchayat, Sivakasi Panchayat Union, Thiruthangal Sub Registration District and Virudhunagar Registration District with following boundaries,

¶46

West : First item of the property East : 20 feet width South North common road North : East West main road proceeding from Sivakasi to Pallapatti South : Plot No. 9C of S. Pushpavalli

¶47

The Applicant has submitted the following List of documents in support of his claim in the SA, which are as follows:

¶48

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

¶49

S.No.	Date	Description
1	07.07.23	13(2)Notice
2	25.09.23	13(4)Notice
3	13.10.23 & 16.10.23	1^stNotice informing about sale in respect of Property 1
4	13.10.23 & 16.10.23	2^ndNotice informing about sale in respect of rest of the Propertiesin Property 2

¶50

Page 4 of 8

¶51

SA No.624/2023

¶52

3 . On the other hand, the Counsel for the Defendant Bank appeared before this Tribunal and filed Vakalat, Reply Statement, Written Arguments, Typed set of papers & Additional Typed set of papers in which they submitted that the Applicant had categorically admitted the borrowal of loan & execution of loan documents & creation of mortgage. Further submitted that the Applicant is not prompt in servicing the principal & interest and that the symbolic possession taken by the bank is neither illegal nor in violation of provisions of Act & Rules. Further, the Defendant Bank issued two separate Possession Notices dated 25.09.23, one for Property at Gnanagiri Road, Sivakasi Town and another one for Property at Sri Ayyappan Nagar, Keelathiruthanal Village. Both Possession Notices sent to all the defaulters were returned as "unclaimed". Then, Bank has published both the Possession Notices in newspapers both in English & Tamil dailies on 27.09.23 consisting of both properties. Bank has also affixed the Possession Notices on the conspicuous part of the properties.

¶53

It is further submitted that the Applicant has not sent any reply to the Demand Notice. Further, the Applicant has not made any payment from February 2024 after complying the conditional order of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Further, the Defendant Bank sent both the Possession Notices in a single postal cover. It is pertinent to note that all the postal covers were returned with an endorsement as "unclaimed" & Addressee absentIntimation given". The Applicant has taken copy of the Possession Notice affixed in the conspicuous part of the property at Gnanagiri Road, Sivakasi Town alone and filed this SARFAESI Application and wantonly & willfully not taken copy of the Possession Notice affixed in the conspicuous part of the property at Sri Ayyappan Nagar, Keelathiruthanal Village and not challenged the same.

¶54

The Defendant Bank further submitted that there is no procedural irregularity on the part of the Defendant Bank in issuing the Demand Notice & taking possession & issuing Possession Notice under the SARFAESI Act & Rules and that the alleged procedural irregularity mentioned in the SARFAESI Application are not factually & legally correct and that the Defendant Bank has issued the Demand Notice & Possession Notice only as per the provisions & procedures of the SARFAESI Act & Rules. Hence, if the Possession Notice is set-aside, the Defendant Bank will be put to untold hardships and irreparable loss & injury; on the other hand no prejudice will be caused to the Applicant. The balance of convenience is only in favour of the Defendant Bank.

¶55

It is further submitted that the Applicant is a willful & Chronic Defaulter. She willfully, wantonly & deliberately not repaying the loan

¶56

Page 5 of 8

¶57

SA No.624/2023

¶58

amount despite her sufficient means to repay the loan and that the main intention of the Applicant is only to drag on the proceedings without making any payment and to defeat & delay & defraud the valuable rights of the Defendant Bank. The only remedy available to the Applicant is to re-pay the entire dues to the Defendant Bank in order to stop the sale as per section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶59

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the Application with cost and thus render justice.

¶60

Typed set filed by the Defendant Bank

¶61

S.No.	Date	Particulars
1	07.07.2023	DemandNoticewithpostal receipts &ADcards
2	25.09.2023	Possession Notice with postal receipts & return covers
3	25.09.2023	Paper Publications of Possession Notice in English
4	25.09.2023	Paper Publications of Possession Notice in Tamil
5	25.09.2023	Photography showing affixture of Possession Notice

¶62

Additional Typed set filed by the Defendant Bank

¶63

S.No.	Date	Particulars
1	25.09.2023	Three Original Return Covers of Possession Notices
2	25.09.2023	Original photo showing affixture of Possession Notice at"Gnanagiri Road"
3	25.09.2023	Original photo showing affixture of Possession Notice"Sri Ayyappan Nagar"

¶64

4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:-

¶65

WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO GET THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR?

¶66

5 . Having heard the parties and after going through the entire documents available on the records, this Tribunal find that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the availment of loan facilities by creating equitable mortgage on their property. In this case, the Applicant contended that initially the Applicant has repaid the monthly installments regularly and so far he has paid a sum of Rs. 27,42,653/-. But, he did not

¶67

Page 6 of 8

¶68

SA No.624/2023

¶69

produce any substantial evidence to prove his allegation. However, it is alleged that to the shock and surprise, the Applicant received Demand Notice dated 07.07.2023, U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act from the Defendant Bank.

¶70

In Reply Statement, the Bank submitted that since the Applicant failed to repay the loan as agreed to and hence the loan account was declared as NPA. Thereafter, the Defendant Bank was constrained to issue Demand Notice dated 07.07.2023, U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act to the Applicant. The Applicant himself has admitted the fact that he has received the Demand Notice in his averments. Further, the Defendant Bank also has filed AD Cards for having sent the copies of Demand Notice to the Borrowers/Guarantors (Page nos. 4 & 5 of Bank's Typed set). However, the Applicant has not produced any evidence for having replied to the Demand Notice U/s. 13(3-A) of SARFAESI Act and failed to give any representation to the Defendant Bank.

¶71

Further, I find that the Defendant Bank had issued Possession Notice U/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act on 25.09.2023. The Applicant in his averment stated that the Bank has failed to issue symbolic Possession Notice to the Applicant. But, I find that the Defendant Bank has filed returned postal covers with postal remarks "unclaimed" (page nos.1 to 6 of Additional typed set filed by the Defendant Bank) as a proof for having sent the copy of Possession Notice to the Applicant by Post. I also find that the Bank has produced the xerox copies of Paper Publication of Possession Notice in two newspapers one in English and another in Tamil (Bank's Typed set of papers at page nos. 13 & 14). Further, the bank has filed photos of affixture of Possession Notice at page nos. 7 to 12 of Bank's Additional Typed set of papers. Thus, I find that the Defendant Bank has strictly followed the SARFAESI procedures, while publishing the Possession Notice to the Applicants.

¶72

Further, the Applicant has not placed any material evidence before this Tribunal to substantiate her claim that the classification of loan account as NPA was wrong and rate of interest has been charged excessively

¶73

Page 7 of 8

¶74

SA No.624/2023

¶75

against the guidelines of RBI. Further, the Applicant has not produced any proof of document that they made representations to the Defendant Bank to furnish the copy of Statement of Accounts.

¶76

I find that this Tribunal has granted a conditional Stay Order dated 09.11.2023. The Applicant has complied with the conditions imposed by this Tribunal and paid a total sum of Rs. 26,10,000/- and showed her bona-fide.

¶77

In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that Applicant has failed to prove her case and on the other hand, I find that the Bank has followed the procedures for recovery of loan amount under SARFAESI Act as such I do not find any merit in the above SARFAESI Application.

¶78

In the result, SA No. 624/2023 stands dismissed with no costs. However, the Applicant has complied with this Tribunal's conditional order dated 02.08.2023. Hence, the Defendant Bank can settle the dispute amicably as the Applicant has shown her bonafide. Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of. No costs.

¶79

Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 27^th May, 2025.

¶80

sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶81

Uploaded on 29.05.2025

¶82

Page 8 of 8

K Pandiyammal v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Pandiyammal v. Union Bank of India

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

Sooraj R Nair versus The Chief Judicial Magistrate

Canara Bank versus P Krishnamoorthy

V Jegan versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

J Syed Ali Fathima versus Indian Bank

Kaniamudha versus Canara Bank

Bakery Amutham versus The Chief Judicial Magistrate