Dismissed

P Harikrishnan v. Harikrishnan

DRT17 Dec 2025SA/838/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging a Sec.14 order for possession. It held that Sec.14 powers are ministerial, the bank complied with procedural notices, and the applicant waived rights by not challenging the Possession Notice within the limitation period.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application challenging the Sec.14 order was dismissed. The order directing possession of the schedule property stands upheld.

P Harikrishnan versus Harikrishnan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 838 of 2024

¶8

Mr. P. Harikrishnan, S/o. Parasuraman, Prop. Of M/s. P. Harikrishnan, No.90, Panjupettai Big Street, Kanchipuram -631 502. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

M/s. The South Indian Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Manager, Regional office at: No.43, Ground Floor, Hameedia Centre, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai -600 006. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P. Venugopal Counsel for respondent : M/s. Deepa Harigovind

¶13

ORDER ON SA 838/2024

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 20.11.2024

¶15

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].

¶16

The applicant has challenged Sec.14 Order dated 20.03.2024 in C.M.P. No.8602 of 2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpat and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.69,09,760.52/-

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶21

The applicant is an Agriculturist and running a rice mill for the past 25 years availed SME Composite Loan CCOL of Rs.45 Lakhs on 05.04.2017 vide A/c.No.0029083000003031 for his rice mill business and had mortgaged the property in respect of loan. From the date of availing a loan, the applicant had maintained regular payment to the respondent bank.

¶22

The respondent bank sanctioned a Housing Loan for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs on 26.05.2020 vide A/c.No.0029655000000140, repayable in 20 years for which the applicant had executed memorandum of deposit of title deed on 26.05.2020 and created valid equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent bank for the due repayment and credit facilities granted by the respondent bank. Subsequently, business suffered due to pandemic period and applicant could not pay the loan.

¶23

The respondent sanctioned credit facility of Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) in A/c.No.0029656000000110 for a sum of Rs.6,67,000.00 for his business on 24.09.2020 repayable in EMI scheme of Rs.18,620/- per month in 36 months.

¶24

It is submitted that the applicant has been repaying all the loan amount regularly and paid a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- until 2023 and 25.04.2024 in the Cash Credit Loan and is trying to settle the loan by OTS on 04.06.2024 which respondent has rejected without assigning any reason on 13.06.2024.

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

Due to pandemic period, the applicant was unable to raise any crop on the agricultural land and could not repay the installments, resulting in declaration of loan account as NPA in respect of Housing Loan in A/c.No.0029655000000140 (on 28.02.2023).

¶29

Further the respondent had issued Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 14.06.2023 without issuing the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice, claiming an amount of Rs.66,92,594/- by clubbed all the loans and mortgaged the property as security for the loan A/c.No.0029655000000140 for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs only in which the outstanding balance amount of Rs.13,46,227/- but bank has included another loan amount of Rs.45 Lakhs and Rs.6,67,000/- availed for business in another account number without issuing any notice which is invalid.

¶30

The Hon’ble CJM passed order to take Physical Possession and appointed the Advocate Commission and the bank is threatening the applicant for taking the physical possession where tenants are occupying in the schedule mentioned property are not issued any notice from advocate commissioner. The bank has to proceed against the tenant in accordance with Tenancy Act but the bank has deliberately violated.

¶31

It is further submitted, that the applicant is prepared to discharge the loan within 3 months by selling other properties. But, bank had chosen to proceed for taking physical possession of the schedule property. On 13.11.2024, respondent had obtained the order from the CJM, Chengelpet for taking physical possession, the applicant had approached the counsel

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

of Chengelpet court and obtained order copy for challenging before the court against order. The applicant suffering from huge financial crisis could not mobilize the fund on time on 25.04.2024, however has paid a sum of Rs.2,95,000/-. The respondent pressurized him to vacate the property illegally and applicant is constrained to file Interim Injunction not to disturb their possession.

¶36

It seen that the respondent bank has not provided proper accounts in respect of the entire loan as well as amount repaid till now, but they deliberately suppressed the accounts and attempted to swallow the valuable property in low value. The applicants prays to set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengelpet in C.M.P.No.8602 of 2023 dated 20.03.2024.

¶37

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶38

The respondent bank has filed the counter contending that the applicant had approached the respondent (The South Indian Bank Ltd., Kancheepuram Branch) with a request for a CCOL in year 2009 and had also availed Education Loan for daughter H. Malathi.

¶39

The applicant had executed (MODT) dated 29.09.2009 in favour of the respondent the value of Rs.13,42,500/- which is registered as Doc.No.2147 of 2009 on the file of SRO, Kancheepuram Joint I. The credit facility has been sanctioned vide Loan A.c.No.0029083000003031 execution of necessary documents and said facility has been renewed from time to time.

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

Thereafter the applicant had along with his wife H. Mohanakumari had approached the respondent with a request for availing a Housing Loan Facility and had agreed to abide the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

¶44

It is submitted that the respondent had sanctioned a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs on 16.05.2013 vide loan A/c.No.002965000000140, after execution of necessary documents. Further towards security for the loan. The applicant had executed (MODT) dated 30.05.2013 in favour of respondent which is registered as Doc.No.1892 of 2013 on the file of SRO.

¶45

Therefore, the applicant had approached the bank for grant of additional credit facilities (ECLGS Facility as well as enhancement of the CCOL Facility) made constructive redeposit of the tile deeds and had executed Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on various dated i.e., on 11.04.2014 registered as Doc.No.956/2014, on 11.12.2014 registered as Doc.No.3290 of 2014, on 06.04.2017 registered as Doc.No.617 of 2017, on 26.09.2017 registered as Document No.2069 of 2017, on 28.05.2020 registered as Doc.No.873 of 2020 on the file of SRO, Kancheepuram, Joint I towards security for repayment of all credit facilities availed by them.

¶46

The applicant had availed an ECLGS facility for a sum of Rs.6,67,000/- on 24.09.2020 for his working capital requirements. The facility has been sanctioned vide Loan A/c.No.0029656000000110 upon execution of necessary documents. The applicant had executed a

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 01.10.2020 as continuing security for credit facilities availed in favour of the respondent for an aggregate value of Rs.83,09,500/- which is also registered as Doc.No.2116 of 2020 on the file of SRO and facilities were renewed from time to time. Admittedly the applicant availing of the credit facilities and also creation of the equitable mortgage.

¶51

It is submitted that the CCOL and ECLGS facilities has been availed for business purpose, the inventories, book debts and other asset belonging to the business of the applicant were also hypothecated in favour of the respondent. The applicant had extended the existing mortgage created on the secured asset.

¶52

The applicant failed and neglected to repay the loan amounts and hence the respondent bank classified the loan account as NPA on 28.02.2023 as per the RBI guidelines. The applicant did not take any steps to regularize the loan accounts. The bank was left with no other alternative but to issue Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 27.03.2023 to both, the applicant and his wife who is Co-Borrower/Guarantor. The Demand Notice was duly served on the applicant on 30.03.2023, despite which the applicant neither came forward to discharge the liability nor raised any objection under Sec.13(3A) of the Act.

¶53

It is submitted that the respondent through its Authorized Officer initiated further steps under the Act by issuing a Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 14.06.2023 in respect of the schedule property. The

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

Possession was duly served to the applicant on 15.06.2023, affixed and also published the Newspaper one in English daily “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 17.06.2023. The applicant had not challenged the Possession Notice.

¶58

It is submitted that the respondent had approached the CJM Chengelpet Vide C.M.P.No.8602 of 2023 obtained an order dated 20.03.2024 for physical possession of the property. The bank had also issued a notice for redemption dated 09.07.2024 as contemplated under section 13(8) of the Act and called upon the applicant to redeem his mortgaged property within 30 days. The notice was delivered to the applicant on 12.07.2024, despite which the applicant failed to come forward and redeem the property by paying his entire dues.

¶59

It is submitted that the respondent bank could not accept the OTS proposal dated 04.06.2024 submitted by the applicant, as the same was not commensuration to the outstanding dues and realizable value of securities in the account.

¶60

In spite of approaching the respondent assurances of regularizing the account had neither cleared dues nor regularized the loan account. The applicant cannot take under the Covid situation continuously defaulting his dues.

¶61

Further, the applicant had extended the mortgage of secured asset to all the additional facilities availed vide Supplemental MODT dated 30.05.2013, 11.04.2014, 11.12.2014, 06.04.2017, 26.09.2017.

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

28.05.2020 and 01.10.2020. In spite of Possession Notice the applicant did not come forward to repay the dues. Since, the applicant was creating roadblocks for taking the physical possession of the property, the respondent was constrained to approach the CJM Court and obtain necessary order of the secured asset. The respondent submits that they are not aware of any tenant in the secured asset.

¶66

The Authorized Officer had followed all the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The applicant had not made out any valid ground for restraining the bank not to proceed with taking physical possession of the schedule mentioned property pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2024 passed in C.M.P.No.8602 of 2023, which has been obtained following all the procedure laid down. Hence, the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶67

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of

¶68

the case.

¶69

The records reflects that the applicant is the Borrower and availed Loan the following facilities.

¶70

i) CCOL for a sum of Rs.45 Lakhs vide A/c.No.0029083000003031 ii) ECLGS for a sum of Rs.6,67,000/- vide A/c.No.0029656000000110 iii) Housing Loan for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs vide A/c.No.0029655000000140 as security towards the credit facility applicant had mortgaged the property as security.

¶71

The applicant has deposited title deeds on 29.09.2009 and the supplemental memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 30.05.2013,

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

11.04.2014, 11.12.2014, 06.04.2017, 26.09.2017, 28.05.2020 and 01.10.2020 which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Kancheepuram favoring the respondent bank.

¶76

In fact the applicant did not dispute the availing of the credit facility mortgage of the properties as collateral security towards the credit facilities availed by the borrower. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 28.02.2023.

¶77

Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued S. 13(2) Demand Notice dated 27.03.2023, S.13(2) Demand Notice clearly describes the types of loan availed, the nature of facility and the documents executed by the borrowers. Further the description of the properties is clearly mentioned in the S.13(2) demand notice.

¶78

The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice is sent by RPAD the applicant have received the Demand Notice as per the Acknowledgement card produced at Pg.15 of counter. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice as the borrower and the guarantor did not liquated the liability, the respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 14.06.2023 which was duly served. Acknowledgement Cards produced at pg.17-20, and affixture of Possession Notice produced at pg.21 and 22 evidences due service of Possession Notice. Possession notice is also published in two newspapers

¶79

one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dhinamai” both dated 17.06.2023.

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

It is an admitted fact that applicant has not challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 14.06.2023 within the period of 45 days as required under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. It seen that the respondent has produced the copies of the S.13(2) Demand Notice and S.13(4) Possession Notice and its acknowledgement cards for due compliance of the measures taken. As the applicants failed to repay the entire outstanding amount the bank has proceeded and approached the CJM, Chengalpat in u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon’ble CJM after perusal of the application and the loan documents produced by the respondent bank respondent have allowed the S.14 application on 20.03.2024.

¶84

The Ld. Magistrate after due verification of the documents and the pleadings in Sec.14 application have allowed the S.14 petition filed by the secured creditor by directing the Advocate Mr. Arumugam, as the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property, take inventories if necessary and thereafter take possession of the petition mentioned property and hand over the same to the petitioner/bank. Ld. Advocate commissioner the Tahsildar Kancheepuram Taluk, directed to assist the Ld. Advocate Commissioner to identify the petition mentioned property by deputing competent revenue and survey officials.

¶85

Thus it is evident that the Ld. Magistrate on examination of the pleadings in the S.14 application which is supported by the documents have passed an order dated 20.03.2024 directing the Advocate Commissioner to

¶86

take the possession of the property. Though the applicant have filed the

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

present SA impugning the Sec.14 order dated 20.03.2024 passed by Ld. CJM, Chengelpet has not pointed out any illegality in the measures taken by the respondent herein.

¶91

On the other hand, though the statuary notices, the Demand Notice dated 27.03.2023 and Possession Notice dated 14.06.2023 is issued the applicant and has waived right to raise any contentions with regard to sec.13(4) possession notice within the period of 45 days. Hence any contentions to sec.13(4) was barred by limitation.

¶92

Now considering 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 nonadjudicatory 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.

¶93

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

¶94

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt.

¶95

Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra has held that Court is only required

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

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 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶100

“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”.

¶101

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 before any other authority. This provision ensures that the authority of these officials in enforcing security interests is final and not subject to further review.

¶102

39. T hus, the Sec.14 order passed by the Ld. Section 14 order dated 20.03.2024 in C.M.P. No.8602/2023 passed by CJM, Chengalpet is after due consideration of the application, affidavit in support of compliance of procedures along with documents is an execution Order issued where no

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

adjudication is required. The Order is passed considering the due

¶107

compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix].

¶108

On examination of pleadings and documents produced by respective parties, the Tribunal comes to conclusion that the respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act after classifying the

¶109

account as NPA.

¶110

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. Thus it is held that the Demand Notice u/s S.13[2] Demand Notice dated 27.03.2023 and S.13[4] Possession Notice dated 14.06.2023 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶111

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/-

¶112

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

¶113

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 17^th day of December, 2025)

¶114

ANNEXURES

¶115

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶116

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Application under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act dated 18.11.2024.	A-1
2.	Sanction of Credit Facilities of ECLGS Loan dated 24.09.2020.	A-2

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

3.	Notice issued by the Defendant Bank for declaring NPA dated 03.03.2023.	A-3
4.	The Defendant Bank issued guarantee invocation letter dated 15.03.2023.	A-4
5.	13(4) notice issued to the applicant by the defendant bank dated 14.06.2023.	A-5
6.	Statement of Account of the Cash Credit Loan Account dated 06.01.2024.	A-6
7.	Statement of Account of the Housing Loan dated 06.01.2024.	A-7
8.	Statement of Accounts of the ECLGS Loan dated 06.01.2024.	A-8
9.	The applicant sent representation to the defendant bank for OTS dated 04.06.2024.	A-9
10.	Defendant Bank rejected the applicant request for OTS dated 13.06.2024.	A-10
11.	Impugned Order in C.M.P.No.8602 of 2023 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 20.03.2024.	A-11
12.	Challen Receipt for payment of Rs.2,95,000/- dated 25.04.2024.	A-12
13.	Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of schedule mentioned property dated 13.11.2024.	A-13
14.	Applicant’s Aadhar Card.	A-14

¶121

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶122

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Demand Notice under section 13(2) dated 27.03.2023.	R-1
2.	Acknowledgement card dated 29.03.2023.	R-2
3.	Possession Notice dated 14.06.2023.	R-3
4.	Acknowledgement card dated 15.06.2023.	R-4
5.	Affixture of Possession Notice dated 14.06.2023.	R-5
6.	Paper Publication in New Indian Express and Dhinamani dated 17.06.2023.	R-6
7.	MODT bearing Doc.No.2147 of 2009 SRO Joint 1 Kanchipuram dated 29.09.2009.	R-7
8.	Supplemental MODT bearing Doc.No.1892 of 2013 SRO Joint 1 Kanchipuram dated 30.05.2013.	R-8
9.	Supplemental MODT bearing Doc.No.956 of 2014 SRO Joint 1 Kancipuram dated 11.04.2014.	R-9

SA No.838/2024

17.12.2025

10.	Supple 2014 11.12.	mental SRO 2014.	MODT Joint	be 1	aring Doc.No.3 Kanchipuram	290 of dated	R-10
11.	Supple 2017 06.04.	mental SRO 2017.	MODT Joint	be 1	aring Doc.No. Kanchipuram	617 of dated	R-11
12.	Supple 2017 26.09.	mental SRO 2017.	MODT Joint	be 1	aring Doc.No.2 Kanchipuram	069 of dated	R-12
13.	Supple 2020 28.05.	mental SRO 2020.	MODT Joint	be 1	aring Doc.No. Kanchipuram	873 of dated	R-13
14.	Supple 2020 01.10.	mental SRO 2020.	MODT Joint	be 1	aring Doc.No.2 Kanchipuram	116 of dated	R-14
15.	Order 20.03.	copy 2024.	of CJ	M	Chengalpattu	dated	R-15
16.	Redem	ption N	otice da	ted	09.07.2024.		R-16
17.	Statem	ent of A	ccounts	da	ted 21.03.2025	.	R-17

¶127

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶128

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 1628 sq.ft., along with building thereon having total build up area of about 2058 Sq.ft., therein and all other constructions, improvements, easementary rights existing and appurtenant thereon situated in Sy.No.2893/1 Part, Sy.No.2894 Part of Panjupettai Big Street Village, Kanchipuram Taluk, Kanchipuram District & Sub Registration District and owned by Mr. Hari Krishnan, more fully described in Registered Partition Sale Deed No.378/1989 dated 21.04.1989 of SRO Kancheepuram Joint I and bounded on

¶129

North : Othavadai Street South : Big Street, West : Appasamy Reddy’s Site East : Subramaniam’s Site. Sd/-

¶130

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

P Harikrishnan v. Harikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Harikrishnan v. Harikrishnan

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

Ssr Rajendrakumar versus Icici Bank Limited

Mr K Selvaraju versus Bank of Baroda

Mrs Pushpa versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Andhra Bank versus S B Agencies

Ms Nakshatra Garments and C M Prabhu and H Navaneetham Prabhu versus City Union Bank Limited

Andhra Bank versus Mr Mohan C