Uma v. South Indian Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Affirming the Section 14 order for taking possession, the Tribunal held the bank complied with SARFAESI procedural requirements. It ruled Section 14 powers are ministerial and the Section 13(2) demand and Section 13(4) notices were validly served.
What did the court decide?
SA dismissed; interim order vacated; pending IAs disposed; no order as to cost.
What the court decided
SA No.832/2024
1
24.11.2025
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2025
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
SA No. 832 of 2024
- Mrs. Uma, W/o. Jayakrishnan, No.16, Bajanai Kovil Street, Nedumaran Village, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu -603 305.
- Mr. Balaji.J, S/o. Jayakrishnan, No.14, Bajanai Kovil Street, Nedumaran Village, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu -603 305.
- Mrs. Mayadevi, W/o. Anandan. S, No.16, Bajanai Kovil Street, Nedumaran Village, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu -603 305.
- Ms. Shruthi, D/o. Anandan. S, No.16, Bajanai Kovil Street, Nedumaran Village, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu -603 305.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Securitization Application successfully challenging the Section 14 order for taking possession of secured assets should be allowed.
Whether the Secured Creditor complied with the statutory requirements under Sections 13(2) demand notice and 13(4) possession notice before seeking possession.
Whether the powers of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI Act are ministerial or adjudicatory and susceptible to review.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mrs. Uma and others (Legal heirs of Jayakrishnan and Anandan S)
- respondent
South Indian Bank
Coram
S.V. Gowramma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court