Dismissed

Nisar Ahemad v. Indian Bank

DRT23 Dec 2025SA/814/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitization Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the applicant's challenge to a Section 14 order granting possession. The court held that Section 14 powers are ministerial and non-adjudicatory, citing Supreme Court precedents, and found the bank's procedures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) compliant despite the applicant's allegations of fraud.

What did the court decide?

Section 14 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate confirmed; Securitization Application dismissed with vacatur of any interim orders.

Nisar Ahemad versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 23^rd day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 814 of 2024

¶8

Mr. Nisar Ahamed, S/o. B. Shaik Sunna Sahib, Door No.205/199, Poonamallee High Road, SSN Complex, II Floor, Maduravoyal, Chennai -600 095. ….Applicant -Vs-

¶9

Indian Bank, Stressed Asset Management Branch, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai -600 008. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A. Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondent : M/s. N. Somasundaar

¶12

ORDER ON SA 814/2024

¶13

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 19.11.2024 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].

¶14

The applicant has challenged the Sec.14 order dated 10.10.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.17546 of 2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.2,32,71,000/-

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶19

The applicant had approached the Manager of Vadapalani branch of the respondent bank seeking for a business loan. The respondent bank granted loan with OCC/Trade well to M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels, a partnership firm represented by its partners Mr. S. Nisar Ahamed & Mr. G. Raja for an amount of Rs.2 Crore on 05.05.2017. The applicant mortgage his property to the credit facility by executing a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on 08.05.2017 vide Dco.No.2685/2017 before SRO, Virugambakkam.

¶20

3.1 It is submitted that the branch manager fraudulently created the partnership firm in the name of M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels. The applicant and G.T. Raja as partners, the applicant has no knowledge about the partnership firm nor knew G.T. Raja before. The branch manager was granted the credit facility in the name of M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels, the entire operation of the bank account was provided to the G.T. Raja.

¶21

3.2 It is further submitted that the partnership firm and credit facility was attached by the Vadapalani branch of respondent bank on the behest of one A. Saravanan and G.T. Rajan. The entire loan amount from the OCC account of M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels were diverted to various accounts belong to Saravanan relatives.

¶22

3.3 It seen that the A. Saravanan with managers of various branches of Indian Bank were granting loan to the borrowers by submitting fake documents and diverted around Rs.127 Crores to various companies

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

created in the name of relative of Mr. Saravanan and the respondent had enhanced the OCC limit of Rs.40 Lakhs on 31.03.2018 without knowledge of the applicant.

¶27

3.4 Further G.T.Raja and A. Saravanan with help of Vadapalani branch managers of respondent bank availed amount of Rs.40 Lakhs without the knowledge of the applicant and G.T. Raja transferred the entire amount of Rs.2,40,00,000/- by way of cheques to himself, A. Saravanan and the accounts of his relatives.

¶28

3.5 The applicant had approached the manager of vadapalani branch of the respondent bank and requested him to release the sanctioned amount to the applicant. On 10.06.2019 the higher officials found out the illegality in the sanctioning of loans by branch manager to G.T. Rajan and A. Saravanan, then Mr. Karthikeyan, General Manager of Indian Bank filed a complaint before the CBI, Chennai against the bank officials of Indian Bank.

¶29

3.6 It is submitted that the complaint filed by the GM of Indian Bank, case was registered in FIR No.RCMA12019A004 and the final report dated 19.02.2020 in C.C. No.01/2021 is filed before the Hon’ble XI additional sessions Judge/Special Judge of CBI Cases, Chennai stated that the accused persons in connivance with the bank officials created 6 different partnership or proprietorship firms for the purpose of availing loans. Hence, the accused persons and the bank officials of respondent bank were booked under Sec.420,468 r/w 471 IPC and Sec.120B of IPC r/w 409, 420,

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

468 r/w 471 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶34

3.7 Further that the applicant loan application was not available with vadapalani branch of the respondent, there was no partnership deed showing the applicant and G.T. Raja as partners of M/s Nisaraja PVC and Steels, and also found out that the bank officials had conspired with G.T. Raja and Saravanan, and created fake documents for address proof showing that the registered office of the partnership was at No.B7/211, Perumal Koil Street, Maduravoyal, Chennai -600 095 and no business was running from the address.

¶35

3.8 It is submitted that the respondent had filed OA.No.156 of 2021 before the Hon’ble DRT-I Chennai, by submitting documents with forged signature of the applicant.

¶36

3.9 The respondent issued Demand Notice dated 05.05.2018 and Possession Notice dated 07.07.2018 bringing the secured property for sale. Hence, the applicant challenged the illegal measures of the respondent bank before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras. After initiation of CBI investigation, the respondent withdrew the earlier demand notice issued dated 05.05.2018 and fresh demand notice dated 16.07.2022 demanding an amount of Rs.3,80,71,396/- due as on 15.07.2022, after receiving the demand notice, the applicant gave an objection under Sec.13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

3.10 The respondent issued Possession Notice dated 10.10.2022, which the applicant challenged in SA.577 of 2022 before this Tribunal DRT-III and obtained an interim order against the Possession Notice. Thereafter, the respondent issued a Sale Notice dated 19.10.2022 bringing the secured property for sale on 25.11.2022 in which the respondent bank had brought a purchaser through backdoor entry and sold the property. However, the applicant challenged the Auction Sale held on 25.11.2022 before the Hon’ble DRT-II in S.A.No.14 of 2023, which is still pending.

¶41

3.11 During the pendency of SA.No.577 of 2022 pending before this Tribunal, the respondent filed a petition with false averments under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Ld. CJM Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.17546 of 2023 for taking physical possession of the property and affidavit filed before the Ld. CJM, Tiruvallur is false and without any material proof. The affidavit filed by the Authorized Officer of the respondent bank is unsustainable before the eye of law as there was no details of the Advocate before the Authorized Officer.

¶42

3.12 The applicant mentioned in the Affidavit and petition filed before the Ld. CJM, Tiruvallur is different from the address found in the Possession Notice 10.10.2022. Further, the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds was executed on 08.05.2015, to the credit facility in the year 2017, the MODT executed in the year 2015.

¶43

3.13 It is submitted that the loan was granted to non-existing partnership firm fraudulently created by the branch manager, G.T. Raja and A.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

Saravanan and the applicant never received the loan amount for his business. Hence, the respondent bank cannot proceed against the property of the applicant, and bank had not complied the proviso of Sec.14 (b) of the Act and filed incorrect affidavit before the Ld. CJM without verifying the affidavit and passed an order on 10.10.2024 and appointed Mr. G. Vasanthakumar, as Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property.

¶48

3.14 The respondent had claimed that demand notice dated 16.07.2022 was delivered to the applicant. But the demand notice is received in the name C. Dharmaraju and the applicant has signed nor received the copy of the demand notice in person nor authorized any person to receive the copy and filing this false proof as the demand notice was served to the applicant thereby deceived the Hon’ble Court. Hence, the demand notice was not served to the applicant.

¶49

3.15 It is contended that the without verifying the affidavit, Sec.14 application is allowed and appointed Mr. G. Vasanthakumar as the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property. The order of the Ld. CJM, Tiruvallur, and the Advocate Commissioner notice on 13.11.2024 was affixed on the secured property which does not contain name and address of the advocate commissioner, hence vitiates the entire process of taking physical possession of the secured property.

¶50

3.16 The respondent bank with fraudsters granted loan to fraudulently created partnership firm and officials were made as accused by CBI, issued

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

faulty demand notice, possession notice even sold the property through back door entry even taking physical possession of the property while CBI case is still pending.

¶55

3.17 Hence, the impugned notice of the Advocate Commissioner notice dated 13.11.2024 pursuant to order dated 10.10.2024 passed by Ld. CJM, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.17546 of 2023 U/s.14 of SARFAESI Act.

¶56

3.18 In the grounds it is contended that the without issuing Sec.13(2) Demand Notice and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice is purely abuse of process of law. The address mentioned in the possession notice is completely different from the one found in the Demand Notice and the possession notice was issued to the applicant without even affixing on the property which is against Rule 8(1) of SIE Rules. The applicant prays to set aside the Sec.14 order passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Tiruvallur.

¶57

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶58

The respondent had filed reply statement contending that the applicant judicial admission made in terms of Sec.58 of Indian Evidence Act in Writ Petition No.4063 of 2019 as to the availment of Rs.2 Crore by M/s Nisaraja PVC & Steels of which is a silent partner and executed the registered equitable mortgage in favour of the 2^nd respondent bank over his property measuring 1914 sq.ft., with building thereon situated at No.217, New No.205, Poonamalle High Road and Perumal Kovil street Maduravoyal, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District within Maraimalai Municipality, Ambattur Taluk.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

4.1 The applicant had approached the respondent bank seeking financial assistance for own business purpose to the nature of business carried on by him; branch manager had cunningly made him mortgage his property vide memorandum of deposit of title deeds Doc.No.2685/2017 dated 08.05.2017 before SRO, Virugambakkam to the OCC/Trade Well Credit facility of Rs.2 Crores was granted to M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels represented by partners S. Nisar Ahmed and G. Raja as partnership firm was fraudulently created by the Branch Manager showing the applicant and G.T. Raja as partners in every respects are misstatements, misrepresentations rather fraudulent representation before the Tribunal.

¶63

4.2 The name of M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels appears to the prefixes name of its constituents-Nisar Ahamed and Raja in respect of the applicant had no exception in earlier W.P.No.4063 of 2019. Hence the present SA is liable to be dismissed, on the ground of Suppressio veri, Suggestion falsi and Suppressio veri, Expressio falsi”.

¶64

4.3 The Sanction ticket dated 05.05.2017 the name of the borrower to be M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels, its constitution as partners Mr. Nisar Ahamed and G. Raja and the collateral to be the properties worth Rs.254 Lakhs belong to Mr. Nisar Ahamed one of the partners of the firm and execution of memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 08.05.2017 in favour of the respondent bank and securing repayment of all advances and credit facilities granted by the bank to M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels for a maximum of Rs.2 Crore by way of OCC/Trade well together with interest, costs, charges and expenses.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

4.4 The respondent issued demand notice dated 05.05.2018 and possession notice dated 07.07.2018, fresh demand notice dated 16.07.2022 mentioning about the withdrawal of the earlier demand notice dated 05.05.2018 to which applicant issued notice under Section 13(3A) to the demand notice and bank issuance of possession notice dated 10.10.2022 as also issuance of auction sale notice dated 19.10.2022 in respect of the auction held on 25.11.2022.

¶69

4.5 However, the respondent had proceeded with the sale of property through back door entry without even taking physical possession while CBI case is still pending and an interim order which came to be passed against possession notice in SA.No.577/2022 by Hon’ble DRT-II, Chennai the sale which came to be held and there was no interdiction for conduction and the interim order have been granted against possession notice was not extended by the applicant.

¶70

4.6 The respondent bank issued Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 10.10.2022 which came to be challenged by the applicant in SA.577/2022 before Hon’ble DRT-II, Chennai and bank issuance of auction sale notice 19.10.2022 in respect of the auction held on 25.11.2022 which came to be challenged in SA.14/2023 before Hon’ble DRT-II Chennai. However, the present SA filed before the Tribunal the applicant falsely contended have not been served with the demand notice have been received by one C. Dharmaraju notwithstanding the applicant and otherwise with regard to service of demand notice in the earlier two SAs filed before the Tribunal may consider before entertaining the present SA on merits.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

4.7 The applicant made that the entire conspiracy of creating fraudulent partnership firm and granting credit facility was attached by the Vadapalani Brach of the respondent bank. One A. Saravanan and G.T. Rajan and entire sanctioned loan amount from the OCC account of M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels and diverted to various accounts.

¶75

4.8 The respondent enhanced the OCC limit of Rs.40 Lakhs on 31.03.2018 without knowledge of the applicant and G.T. Raja transferred the entire amount of Rs.2,40,00,000/- by way of cheques to himself, saravana and his relatives. The applicant had approached the manager of Vadapalani branch asking to release the sanctioned loan amount he was asked to wait for some time as audit report was pending approval that OA.No.156.2021 has been filed by the respondent by submitting documents with forged signatures of the applicant and the CBI investigation of fraud committed by the bank officials.

¶76

4.9 The respondent has filed Crl.M.P.No.17546/2023 for taking physical possession of the property the pendency of SA.No.577/2022 and applicant’s objection of interim order against the possession notice that the affidavit filed before the Ld. CJM Thiruvallur is defective and unsustainable and not containing the details of Advocate before the Authorized Officer affirmed and signed it besides incorrect date of MOTD and different address of the applicant and found in possession notice, the Ld. CJM allowed the application and appointed Advocate Mr. G. Vasanthakumar as Advocate Commissioner without verifying the affidavit and proof annexed and that the Advocate Commissioner notice issued on 13.11.2024 affixed on the

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

secured property does not contain name and address and someone else signed, the entire process of taking physical possession of the property are denied and disputed.

¶81

4.10 The respondent issued Sec.13(4) Possession Notice without issuing Sec.13(2) Demand Notice should be brushed aside going by his own submission rather admission in the present SA. The Demand Notice which came to be replied by the respondent vide rely notice dated 23.08.2022 and objection dated 08.08.2022 given by the applicant, in terms of Sec.13(3A) which was tagged along with the other documents in SA.No.577/2022 filed by applicant before the DRT-II had been cunningly, daringly and illegally. The applicant to mislead and obtain a favorable order which is perpetrated upon this Tribunal and should vitiate the above proceedings and entail dismissal of the present SA.

¶82

4.11 However, the applicant had filed the present SA before the Tribunal has filing the earlier 2 SAs before Hon’be DRT-II Chennai to cover up his false, and obtain conflicting, dissenting decisions form either of the Tribunals upon setting up different case and contentions.

¶83

4.12 It is contended that the possession notice setting out a different address from one found in the demand notice as also for the reason of nonaffixture on the property are denied and disputed in view of the respondent effectuation of personal service of notice on the applicant, and affixture of secured asset and registered post besides its publication in English “The Indian Express” and Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 12.10.2022.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

4.13 It is pertinent to note that the possession notice pointed out in the given SA are matters sized by the DRT-II in the applications pending in SA.No.577/2022 should not be any avail and advantage to him in the present SA Challenging the Sec.14 measures and its well settled legal proposition that the secured creditor and physical possession of the secured asset directly without taking.

¶88

4.14 It is contended that the partnership deed to show the applicant and G.T. Raja are partners of the firm M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels that the statement of accounts was not properly verified and respondent filed affidavit before Ld. CJM, Thiruvallur without details of the Advocate was affirmed and signed by the Authorized Officer; the loan application was not filed before the court the applicant making out of an application that the Advocate Commissioner notice was issued on 13.11.2024 nor containing his name, address and signature is illegal and that the impugned order of Ld. CJM, Thiruvallur passed without verifying the service of demand notice on the applicant being violation of Sec.14(1)(b)(vi) and (ix) of the Act is liable to be set aside.

¶89

4.15 It seen that the Rs.40 lakhs is availed by G.T. Raja without knowledge of the applicant, which came to be drawn by the borrower firm along in the OCC A/c.No.6525037500 in respect of the applicant as its partner had no quarrel then or even not in his reply objection dated 08.08.2022 made in terms of Sec.13(3A).

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

4.16 It is contended that the non-disbursement of loan amount his nonsigning of any loan documents except MODT for the payment of Rs.2 Crores, the non-existence of a partnership deed between the applicant and G.T. Raja setting out the power to withdraw the money from the loan account, non-signing of a partnership deed as a partner and the respondent bank to claim the debt due from the applicant are necessarily to be disdained and discarded in view of this judicial admission in terms of Section 58 of Evidence Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.No.4063 of 2019. The applicant admit to have got sanctioned a OCC Loan of Rs.2 Crores by the bank in the name and style of M/s.Nisaraja PVC & Steels, execution of registered equitable mortgage in favour of respondent after sanction of loan as also signing of documents and acting as silent partner.

¶94

4.17 The silent partner he was not evincible from the sanction letter, DPN, Partnership Letter cannot seek relief in this SA by contending. The applicant would not have undertaken to pay Rs.50 Lakhs as recorded by Hon’ble High Court in interim order dated 12.02.2019 made in Writ Petition had he not availed the loan in the name of M/s. Nisaraja PVC & Steels and had not liability towards the debt payable to the bank. The applicant had in his letters dated 09.02.2019 and 11.02.2019 addressed to the SAM Branch of the respondent bank agreed to close the loan from compensation amount to be received by him from SIPCOT towards some of his properties.

¶95

4.18 It is submitted that the applicant who admitted to be a partner of the borrower firm and executing documents including MODT is liable and

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

responsible for discharge of the secured debt notwithstanding the initiation and outcome of criminal proceedings as it is no more res integra that the secured creditor is entitled rather obligated with its recovery measures civil proceedings RDB Section 19 application and Section 13(4) measures under SARFAESI Act.

¶100

4.19 Further, the Bank’s lodging of a complaint for any infirmities, lapses or illegalities in sanctioning of loan against its officials, offenders and beneficiaries including the applicant cannot be a ruse for the applicant to avoid his liability more so in the back drop of his non-initiation of any civil or criminal proceedings against his partner and alleged beneficiaries ushering in the plea of mismanagement, fraud, siphoning or diversion of funds. The applicant who contends to have extended himself as a tool for grabbing bank money which is a public money, cannot seek exoneration of his liability under the context of not being benefited by it.

¶101

4.20 The complaint lodged at the instance of the bank under criminal law in no way affects the validity and the security interest created by the applicant and the secured debt to be realized by it. The respondent has acted legally, fairly and reasonably as expected of his solemn office, did assume possession of the secured asset, proceeded with the conduction of sale on 25.11.2022 and filed Section 14 petition before Ld. CJM Thiruvallur only in accordance with law. The applicant in filing the SA for the sake of frustrating its lawful measures does not warrant allowing of the applicant to seek umbrage/shelter under the provisions of SARFAES Act which is special law legislated to ensure expeditious recovery of bank dues. The

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

respondent has acted fairly, justifiably, in utmost good faith and in accordance with law requiring no intervention under section 17 of the Act.

¶106

4.21 It is alleged that the Sec.14 measures had been filed not by the Authorized Officer since the affidavit came to be filed by Chief Manager of a Public Sector Bank in term section 13(12) of the SARFAESI Act r/w Rule 2(a) of the relevant rules which cannot be flawed.

¶107

4.22 It is contended that the affidavit filed by Authorized Officer U/s.14 of the act or against the notice dated 13.11.2024 affixed by Advocate Commissioner of no legal consequence as the contemplation of Affidavit of Authorized Officer the Ld. CJM Thiruvallur who is legally mandated to render assistance to secured creditors for recovery public dues.

¶108

4.23 The amount recoverable from the applicant as on Rs.1.73 crore with further interest and costs and applicant having failed to pay the secured debt prior to the respondent publication of sale notice on 22.10.2022 the right to hold property under Article 300A of the constitution and right of redemption embedded in the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶109

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

¶110

It is discernible from the records that the applicant is the partner of M/s Nisaraja PVC & Steels a partnership firm, guarantor and mortgagor to the loan availed by the firm. The firm availed loan OCC an amount of Rs.2 Crores in A/c.No.6525037500 which is personally guaranteed by Mr. S.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

Nisar Ahamed & Mr. G. Raja as partners and had executed guarantee agreement dated 10.05.2017 and has mortgaged properties favoring the bank.

¶115

5.1 Due to default in the repayment, the bank has classified the account as NPA on 29.04.2018. Subsequent to classification of account as NPA, the bank have issued Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 16.07.2022 demanding an outstanding amount of Rs.3,80,71,396/- due as on 15.07.2022. The Sec.13(2) demand notice was sent by RPAD to the borrower and the guarantor. It seen from the Sec.13(2) demand notice that the bank have clearly described the nature of the loan, the documents executed by the applicant and the partnership firm, the details of the security for the due repayment.

¶116

5.2 It seen that the date of NPA is on 29.04.2018 and total outstanding amount due is also clearly mentioned. Further it is also intimated that the applicant, that the borrower and the mortgagor cannot transferred the secured asset by way of sale or by lease or any other mode as provided under Sec.13 of the Act. Further the attention of the borrower and the mortgagor was also brought to Sec.13(8) giving them the redemption time to redeem the property. The Sec.13(2) is received by one C. Dharmaraju personally and the notices sent through M/s Nisaraja PVC & Steels is received and the unclaimed RPAD covers are produced. The bank has also taken the publication of the Sec.13(2) in two newspapers as required under the Act and the Rules.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

5.3 It is also on record that the applicant had mortgaged the property on 08.05.2017 and had deposited the title deeds registered as Doc.No.2685.2017 in the office of the sub registrar Virugambakkam. In fact the applicant had admitted the availment of the credit facility of Rs.2 crores by M/s Nisaraja PVC & Steels of which he acted as a silent partner and executed the registered equitable mortgage in favour of the bank of his property measuring 1914 sq.ft., with building thereon situated at No.217, New No.205, Poonamalle High Road and Perumal Kovil street Maduravoyal, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District within Maraimalai Municipality, Ambattur Taluk.

¶121

5.4 The applicant falsely alleges that the branch manager had cunningly mortgaged his property to the OCC-/Trade well credit facility of Rs.2 Crores granted to M/s. Nisaraja PVC & steels. The said contention is falsified as the applicant is Mr. S. Nisar Ahamed is one of the partner and the partnership firm name stands in the name M/s. Nisaraja PVC & steels the firm’s name appears to be prefixes/names of its constituents that is Mr. S. Nisar Ahamed & Mr. G. Raja.

¶122

5.5 As the borrower and the mortgagor did not liquated the liability within the period of 60 days, the bank have issued the Sec.13(4) Possession notice dated 10.10.2022 which is produced by the applicant at Pg.24 of the SA. In fact, the applicant has challenged the possession notice in SA.577.2022 before this Tribunal and the sale notice dated 19.10.2022 scheduling the property to be sold on 25.11.2022 in SA.14.2023 before DRT-II Chennai pending adjudication.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

5.6 The contention that the demand notice is not served is contrary to records as the notice is received by one C. Dharmaraju and averments to Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 10.10.2022 is challenged by the applicant in SA.577.2022 pending adjudication. Hence the contention that no demand notice and possession notice is served is contrary to applicant own statements and the challenge to them are matter of record. As the applicant, the borrower and guarantor did not liquated in spite of Sec.13(2) demand notice and Sec.13(4) Possession notice the bank has filed Crl.M.P.No.17546 of 2023 to take the possession of the property .

¶127

5.7 It is contended that the Order was passed by the Ld. Magistrate is defective as incorrect date of MOTD and different address of the applicant is mentioned, which the Ld. Magistrate have allowed the petition on 10.10.2024 appointing advocate Mr. G. Vasanthakumar as the advocate commissioner and the advocate commissioner vide letter dated 13.11.2024 affixed on the property does not contain name and address and same is not signed.

¶128

5.8 On receipt of the demand notice, applicant had raised an objections under section 13(3A) which came to be replied by the bank vide reply notice dated 23.08.2022 and the objection dated 08.08.2022 is the subject matter in SA.577.2022 filed before this Tribunal.

¶129

5.9 The applicant has filed present SA with false inconsistence pleading and conflicting statements that Sec.14 order is challenged on the ground

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

that the measures taken by the Authorized Officer is not coming under the purview of the SARFAESI Act and not being a designated person to act.

¶134

5.10 Secondly the S.14 application in Crl.M.P.No.17546 of 2023 does not show that the applicant and G.T. Raja are the partners of the firm, the statement account was not properly verified and the respondent have filed faulty affidavit before the Ld. CJM without details of the advocate whom it was offered and signed by the Authorized Officer.

¶135

5.11 Hence, the order passed by the Magistrate and advocate commissioner notice dated 13.11.2024 is without verifying the service of the Sec.13(2) which in violation of Sec.14 (1)(b)(vi) and (ix) of the Act. The applicant has raised contention that he has not signed the documents except the MODT and there was no such existing of the partnership between the applicant and G.T. Raja is only to be discarded as the same is admitted by the applicant in W.P.No.4063.2019.

¶136

5.12 On the other hand the applicant who is admitted as the partner of the borrower firm and have executed the documents is responsible to pay the repayment amount. The allegation as made in the present SA would not come to the aid of the applicant as it is contrary to the documents executed by him and other allegations against the branch manager who was involved in disbursing the loan is also not the subject matter in the present SA.

¶137

5.13 The Tribunal under Sec.17 is to adjudicate the measure taken by the secured creator are in accordance with the Acts and Rules made thereunder. It seen that the applicant does not dispute the execution of

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

the loan documents and the mortgage of the property. Further the applicant cannot have dispute that he is not partner of the firm as the documents is executed by him as partners of the firm.

¶142

5.14 It seen that the respondent have produced the copy of the Sec.13(2) demand notice which sent by RPAD and the return postal covers of the borrowers and the applicant and the postal acknowledgement card for having received the demand notice by the borrower G. Raja which at Pg. 51-54 of the typeset.

¶143

5.15 Further, the demand notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another on in Tamil “Dhinamani” both dated 22.07.2022 which as produced as annexure R-16 and R-17 at Pg.55 and 56.

¶144

5.16 Additionally the demand notice is affixed on the property as per annexure R.18 at Pg.57. Further the applicant has raised an objection under Sec.13(3A) and bank has a secured creditor has suitably replied to the objection made by the applicant herein. Hence, the contention that no notices served to the parties, no Sec.13(2) demand notice was served to the parties cannot sustain.

¶145

5.17 The bank has proceeded further in issuing the possession notice dated 10.10.2022 along with its affixture and postal receipts the postal tracking sheets and its paper publication in the two newspapers “The New Indian Express” and in “Dhinamani” which is produced by the respondent bank from R.19-25 from Pg. 58-69.

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

5.18 Thus it’s evident that the respondent as the secured creditor has initiated the measures and have produced the documents supporting the compliance of the procedures as contemplated under the Acts and rules made thereunder.

¶150

5.19 Though the applicant has challenged the Sec.14 order have made allegations against the respondent officials and have failed to establish the illegality in the measures taken by the bank. On the other hand the Sec.14 application is filed in Crl.M.P.No.17546 of 2023 giving all the details as required under section 14(i) to 14(ix) along with all the supporting documents, and on perusal of the affidavit application and the documents the Ld. Magistrate has allowed the application on 10.10.2024 appointing the advocate commissioner to take the possession of the property.

¶151

5.20 It is the matter of the record that the respondent bank have also issued the sale notice and the auction sale is challenged in SA.14 of 2023 which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal DRT-II.

¶152

5.21 The challenge to S.14 Order, it is appropriate to mention the declaration of The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments has held that the power of Designated Court under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, 2002 is ministerial and non- adjudicatory in nature and the process to be followed under Section 14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind

¶153

5.22 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Others , held that

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

while exercising power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, even the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction and/or District Magistrate and/or even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between secured creditor and debtor.”

¶158

5.23 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra has held that Court is only required to verify the affidavit of Secured Creditor filed in pursuance of the proviso to Section 14 and nothing more. The above Bombay High Court judgment has since been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated

¶159

26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P)

¶160

Ltd. as under:

¶161

“Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the matter once all the requirements Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal”.

¶162

5.24 Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act statuses that no action taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (or any officer authorized by them) under S.14 can be challenged in court or

¶163

before any other authority. This provision ensures that the authority of

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

these officials in enforcing security interests is final and not subject to further review.

¶168

5.25 T hus, the Sec.14 order passed by the Ld. Section 14 order dated 10.10.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.17546/2023 passed by CJM, Tiruvallur is after due consideration of the application, affidavit in support of compliance of procedures along with documents is an execution Order issued where no adjudication is required. The Order is passed considering the due compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix].

¶169

5.26 On examination of pleadings and documents produced by respective parties, it is evident that consequent to classification of account as NPA has issued S.13[2] demand notice followed by possession notice and have complied all the procedures as contemplated under the Act and the Rules with supporting documents. The Tribunal comes to conclusion that the respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act after classifying the account as NPA and have established the compliance of the procedures and the applicant has failed to establish any illegality in the measures taken under the Act.

¶170

5.27 For the foregoing reasons, the present SA is dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost. Sd/-

¶171

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

¶172

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 23^rd day of December, 2025)

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶178

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Copy of Demand Notice filed by the defendant in Crl.M.P.No.17546/2023 dated 16.07.2022	A-1
2.	Copy of Possession Notice filed by the defendant in Crl.M.P.No.17546/2023 dated 10.10.2022.	A-2
3.	Copy of Affidavit filed in Crl.M.P.No.17546/2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur dated 21.02.2023.	A-3
4.	Copy of Petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.17546/2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur dated 21.02.2023.	A-4
5.	Copy of Order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.17546/2023 dated 10.10.2024.	A-5
6.	Impugned unsigned notice of the Advocate Commissioner dated 13.11.2024.	A-6

¶179

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶180

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Reply Statement filed by the Respondent dated 21.12.2024.	R-1
2.	Authorization Letter.	R-2
3.	Sales Certificate issued in favour of Auction Purchaser dated 09.01.2023.	R-3
4.	Demand Promissory Note dated 10.05.2017.	R-4
5.	Partnership letter dated 10.05.2017.	R-5
6.	Writ petition and Affidavit of applicant in W.P.No.4063 of 2019 dated 30.01.2019.	R-6
7.	Letter of Applicant to 1^strespondent dated 09.02.2019.	R-7
8.	Letter of Applicant to 1^strespondent dated 11.02.2019.	R-8
9.	Interim Order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.4063 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019.	R-9
10.	Letter of respondent bank to applicant along with registration postal receipt dated 19.02.2019.	R-10
11.	Acknowledgement card of Applicant dated 21.02.2019.	R-11
12.	Order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.4063 of 2019 dated 01.03.2019.	R-12

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

13.	Legal Notice of applicant to respondents dated 03.06.2019.	R-13
14.	Submissions of respondent bank to Nation Human Rights Commission dated 21.09.2019.	R-14
15.	Reply Notice of respondents to applicant’s lawyer dated 02.12.2019.	R-15
16.	Registration Postal receipt evidencing issuance of demand notice to borrowers dated 16.07.2022.	R-16
17.	Returned postal covers of borrower firm and applicant.	R-17
18.	Postal acknowledgement card evidencing service of Demand Notice on the borrower G. Raja.	R-18
19.	Publication of demand notice in The New Indian Express dated 22.07.2022.	R-19
20.	Publication of demand notice in Dhinamani dated 22.07.2022.	R-20
21.	Photograph relating to affixture of demand notice.	R-21
22.	Possession notice served personally on applicant dated 10.10.2022.	R-22
23.	Photograph evidencing affixture of possession notice on the secured asset dated 10.10.2022.	R-23
24.	Registration postal receipt evidencing issuance of Possession notice to borrowers dated 10.10.2022.	R-24
25.	Postal Tracking sheets and acknowledgement cards evidencing service of possession notice on the applicant and another borrower Raja dated 11.10.2022.	R-25
26.	Postal Tracking sheet relating to possession notice of borrower firm dated 13.10.2022.	R-26
27.	Possession Notice dated 10.10.2022 published in The New Indian Express English Daily dated 12.10.2022.	R-27
28.	Possession Notice dated 10.10.2022 published in the Dhinamani Tamil Daily dated 12.10.2022.	R-28

¶185

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶186

ITEM No.I

¶187

All that piece and parcel of land of an extent of 1242 Sq.ft., situated in Survey No.20/1B, Door No.217, Perumal Koil Street, Maduravoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

Bounded on the:

North by : Property of Sasikala South by : Property of Mari and Shankar and 6 feet Passage East by : Property of Sekar West : Land of Perumal

¶193

Measuring

¶194

North to South on the Eastern Side 46 feet; Western Side -46 feet East to West on the Northern Side 27 feet; Southern Side 27 feet

¶195

Situated within the Sub Registration District of Virugambakkam and Registration District of Chennai South.

¶196

ITEM NO.II

¶197

All that piece and parcel of land of an extent of 30.2 Sq.Meter situated at Gramanatham S.No.20/1B, New S.No.609/21 as per Patta No.1005, Poonamallee High Road, Maduravoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶198

Bounded on the

¶199

North by : Plot of S. Nisar Ahamed S.No.609/20 South by: Poonamallee High Road, S.No.609/6 East by : Property of Mr. Sankar S.No.609/22

¶200

West by : 6 feet Lane of Poonamallee High Road S.No.609/16 Measuring

¶201

East to West on the Northern Side 4.2 Meter; Southern Side 4.4 Meter North to South on the Eastern Side 7.0 Meter; Western Side -7.2 Meter

¶202

Situated within the Sub Registration District of Virugambakkam and Registration District of Chennai South.

¶203

ITEM No.III

¶204

All that piece and parcel of land of an extent of 30.2 Sq.Meter situated at Gramanatham S.No.20/1B, New S.No.609/22 as per Patta No.974, Poonamallee High Road, Maduravoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District

SA No.814/2024

23.12.2025

Bounded on the

North by : Plot of S. Nisar Ahamed S.No.609/20 South by : Poonamallee High Road, S.No.609/6 East by : 6 Feet Lane of Poonamallee High Road S.No.609/23 West by : Property of Mr. Mari S.No.609/21

¶210

Measuring

¶211

East to West on the Northern Side 4.2 Meter; Southern Side 4.4 Meter North to South on the Eastern Side 7.0 Meter; Western Side-7.0 Meter

¶212

Situated within the Sub Registration District of Virugambakkam and Registration district of Chennai South.

¶213

Of a total extent of (Item No.1, Item No.II & Item No.III) 1892 Sq.ft., with a building constructed thereon.

¶214

Sd/-

¶215

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

Nisar Ahemad v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ahemad v. Indian Bank

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

Punjab National Bank versus Mr G M Sajjad Parvez And Other

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Mahek Udyog

C Krishnamurthy versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus E Indhumathi

City Union Bank Limited versus Mathusa Agencies

Prudent Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus M/s Appollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.