Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a Sale Notice and Section 14 order. The court found the bank followed SARFAESI Act procedures, including proper valuation, notice affixation, and publication, rebutting applicant claims of arbitrariness.
The SARFAESI Application was dismissed with no costs, and all pending interim applications were disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SA No.87/2024
Fair Order
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI
DATED THIS 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA
[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.87/2024
M.G. Pare, Partner, M/s. G.P.Constructions, 1, Gopalsamy Nagar, Pasumalai, Madurai – 625 004. --- Applicant -Vs-
This SARFAESI Application was heard in the presence of Counsels for the Applicant and the 1st 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:
Page 1 of 16
SA No.87/2024
O R D E R
1 . This application has been filed under Sec.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 Sale Notice dated 30.12.2023 issued by the 1st Defendant Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and to set aside the Impugned Order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 807/2023 dated 20.12.23 by the 2nd Defendant under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
2 . The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicant are as follows:-
The Applicant submitted that he has been doing Highway Contract and Railway Contract Work under the name and style of M/s. G.P. Constructions. It is a partnership firm. The Applicant submitted that Applicant, Applicant's wife P. Umamaheswari and one K. Murugesan are partners in it. In order to develop the business, on behalf of G.P. Constructions, the Applicant approached the 1st Defendant for availing certain credit facilities. The Applicant, Applicant's wife and one K. Murugesan agreed to stand as Guarantors for the credit facilities to be sanctioned to G.P. Constructions. The secured assets more fully described in the description of properties belongs to Applicant and Applicant's wife. The Defendant Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lakhs only) towards Cash Credit Loan, Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) towards W.C.T.L., Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) towards F.I.T.L.II, Rs. 1,90,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Lakhs only) towards T.L., Rs. 49,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs only) towards GECL and another sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) towards F.I.T.L. I to M/s. G.P. Constructions on various dates. The Applicant was servicing the interest very promptly and regularly and so far, paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crore only) approximately towards Loan Account.
The Applicant submitted that due to Labour Problem, price raise in raw material, heavy competition in the field and delayed payment from Government besides demonetization, introduction of GST and COVID-19
Page 2 of 16
SA No.87/2024
Pandemic, Applicant's Highway Contract work was affected and hence Applicant unable to pay the loan dues in time. The Applicant submitted that facts being so all of a sudden Applicant was shocked and surprised to receive a Demand Notice dated 30.06.2023 U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, thereby calling upon the borrower and guarantors specified therein to pay the entire amount specified in the said notice. The Applicant immediately rushed to the 1st Defendant and sought an explanation with regard to the said Demand Notice but the 1st Defendant was not in a position to explain as to why the said Demand Notice was issued to the Applicant. Further, the Bank did not consider the request of the Applicant to regularize the account.
Thereafter, the 1st Defendant Bank issued a Possession Notice dated 12.09.2023 and has withdrawn the same for the reasons best known to them and issued present Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 U/s.13(4) of SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that the Applicant is not liable to pay any expenses incurred by the Defendant for the 1st Possession Notice dated 12.09.2023.
The Applicant further submitted that the symbolic possession of the properties described in the schedule allegedly taken by the 1st Defendant is illegal and blatant violation of the provisions under SARFAESI Act and Rules framed there under and the said action including the Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 is liable to be set aside. The 1st Defendant has not affixed the Possession Notice on the conspicuous part of the properties which is a mandatory provision of the Rules framed under SARFAESI Act and the Bank has failed to publish the said Possession Notice in two newspapers having wide circulation in the area where the properties are situated and it is a mandatory provision under SARFAESI Act and Rules framed there under. Since, the mode and procedure for taking Possession of the properties as prescribed in Rule 8(1) of the security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 has not been followed by the 1st Defendant, the Possession Notice become untenable in law and unsustainable.
The Applicant submitted that the Applicant did not execute any M.O.D.T. for GECL and F.I.T.L. I loans in favour of the 1st Defendant. But,
Page 3 of 16
SA No.87/2024
1st Defendant has included the said loans in 13(2), 13(4) and Sale Notice which is blatant violation of SARFAESI Act and Rules. Further, the Applicant has challenged the said 13(4) notice dated 19.09.23 before this Hon'ble Tribunal in SA No. 565/23 and this Hon'ble Tribunal granted conditional stay subject to payment of 40% of the suit amount in 4 instalments. The Applicant submitted that unfortunately none of the instalments were complied by the Applicant. Since, the stay granted is vacated, 1st Defendant got an order in Cr.M.P.No. 807/2023 from the 2nd Defendant on 20.12.23 and hurriedly issued Sale Notice on 30.12.23 thereby fixing e-auction on 09.02.24 for a sum of Rs. 6,68,23,786/-, whereas in the Order passed by the 2nd Defendant in Cr.M.P.No. 807/2023 outstanding amount is mentioned as Rs. 6,46,96,253.80p as on 07.10.23. Further, the Applicant claimed that the 1st Defendant failed to affix the e- auction Sale Notice on the property and failed to publish in two leading newspapers. And, the 1st Defendant without giving 30 days’ time has gone ahead to publish the e-auction Sale Notice.
Further it is submitted that the 1st Defendant by accepting the report of the approved valuer fixed the Reserve Price very low comparing to the market price prevailing at present. The Applicant submitted that the action of the 1st Defendant in trying to bring the properties worth about Rs. 25 Crores to recover a debt of Rs. 6,68,23,786/- is arbitrary and cannot be resorted to by the 1st Defendant. The Applicant further submitted that from the above attitude of the 1st Defendant, it is clear that the 1st Defendant behaves like a property dealer to dispose of the secured assets in an unreasonable and in flagrant violation of statutory provisions which is detrimental to the Applicant. In brief 1st Defendant has failed to observe the procedures while issuing notices under SARFAESI Act. The 1st Defendant has acted in an arbitrary manner. Hence, this SARFAESI Application is preferred on the following among other
Main Grounds:-
Page 4 of 16
SA No.87/2024
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow this Application.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES
Item No. 1a
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk,
Page 5 of 16
SA No.87/2024
Thirupparankundram Village, Sannasi Pathunanja in R.S. No. 18/1 in UDR Survey No. 18/11 out 75 cents Northern land to an extent of 37½ cents and at present 32 cents as on ground and out of 75 cents the southern 37¼ cents and as on ground it is only 37 cents in UDR S.No. 18/1B1 totally to an extent of 69 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site bearing plot no. 3 and plot no.2 (Eastern Part) measuring east west on the north 64½ feet and on the south 64½ feet and north south on the east 43 feet and on the west 39 feet and on the centre 40 feet, totally to an extent of 2623 sq.feet which is situated as within the following four boundaries:
North : Vathiyar Land East : Plot No. 4 South : 20 feet width road West : V.R. Narayanasamy settled Western portion of portion
Nos. 2 & 1
Item No. 1b
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub-Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram, Sannasi Pathu nanja in R.S. No. 18/1 in UDR Survey No. 18/11 out of 75 cents the Northern land to an extent of 37½ cents and at present 32 cents as on ground and out of 75 cents the southern 38½ cents and as on ground it is only 37 cents in UDR S.No.18/1B1 totally to an extent of 69 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site bearing plot no. 1 (Western Part) measuring east west on the north 72 feet and on the south 62 feet and north south on the east 39 feet and on the west 8½ + 26½ =35 feet and on the centre 27 feet, totally to an extent of 2488¼ sq.feet which is situated at within the following four boundaries:
| North | : Vathiyar Land |
|---|---|
| East | : Eastern portion of Plot No.2 belonging to N. Ramamoorthy |
| and Plot No. 3 | |
| South | : 20 feet width road |
| West | : P. Guhan properties and channel |
Item No: 2
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, then within the limit of Thirupparankundram municipality now Madurai Municipal Corporation in Patta No. 9 in R.S. No. 19/7 UDR R.S. No. 19/7b out of 16 cents, the Northern vacant site with house building measuring east west 75 feet and north south on the east 8½
Page 6 of 16
SA No.87/2024
feet and on the west 10 feet totally to an extent of 694 sq.feet, which is within the following four boundaries and measurement:
| North | : | Ramachandran land East |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | South Channel |
| South | : | 20 feet width east-west common road |
| West | : | G S T Road |
Item No: 3a
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, in S.No. 18/1 UDR S.No. 18/1A out of 3 acres 6 cents, the land to an extent 76½ cents and as on ground 72 cents which is converted into various house site and out of which the vacant house site building plot no. 13 measuring East West on the North 36 feet and on the South 36 feet and North South on the East 40 feet and on the West 40 feet totally to an extent of 1440 sq.feet which is situated within the following four boundaries:
| North | : | 20 feet width East – West common road |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 12 |
| South | : | Site measuring in S. No. 18/B1 |
| West | : | Plot No. 14 |
Item No: 3b
In Madurai District, Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, S.No. 18/1 UDR S.No. 18/1A out of 3 acres 6 cents the land to an extent 76½ cents and as on ground 72 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site building plot no. 14 measuring East West on the North 36 feet and on the South 36 feet and on the South on the East 40 feet and on the West 40 feet and on the west 40 feet totally to an extent of 1440 sq.feet which is situated within the following four boundaries:
| North | : | 20 feet width East – West common road |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 13 |
| South | : | Site measuring in S. No. 18/1B1 |
| West | : | Plot No. 15 |
Item No: 3c
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, in S.No. 18/1 UDR S.No. 18/1A out of 3 acres 6 cents the land to an extent of 76½ cents and as on ground 72 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site
Page 7 of 16
SA No.87/2024
building plot no. 15 measuring East West on the North 36 feet and on the South 36 feet and North South on the East 40 feet and on the West 40 feet totally to an extent of 1440 sq.feet which is situated within the following four boundaries:
| North | : | 20 feet width East – West common road |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 14 |
| South | : | Site measuring in S. No. 18/1B1 |
| West | : | Plot No. 16 |
Item No: 3d
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, in S.No. 18/1 UDR S.No. 18/1A out of 3 acres 6 cents the land to an extent 76½ cents and as on ground 72 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site building plot no. 16 measuring East West on the North 38½ feet and on the South 36 feet and North South on the West 40 feet and on the south 36 feet and North South on the East 40 feet and on the West 40 feet totally to an extent of 1490 sq.feet which is situated within the following four boundaries:
| North | : | 20 feet width East – West common road |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 15 |
| South | : | Properties belonging to Nagamudaliar Vahayarah |
| West | : | 20 feet width East-West common Road |
Item No: 4
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, bearing patta No. 790 comprised in R.S.No. 18/1B1 an extent of 37½ cents and in which Eastern portion and bearing patta No. 507 R.S. No. 18/1B2 an extent of 37½ cents clubbed and converted into plots in which plot no. 10 house site bounded by
| North | : | 20 feet width South – North common road |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 11 |
| South | : | East – West channel |
| West | : | Plot No. 9 |
Within these admeasuring east west on the north 74 feet and on the south 74 feet (40+34=74) South North on the East 41 feet, on the west 36 feet an extent of 2849 sq. feet (6 cents 233 sq feet) house site with all its easement rights.
Page 8 of 16
SA No.87/2024
The Applicant has submitted the following List of documents in support of their claim in the SA, which are as follows:
| S.No. | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 30.06.2023 | 13(2) Notice |
| 2. | 12.09.2023 | 1stPossession Notice |
| 3. | 19.09.2023 | 2ndPossession Notice |
| 4. | 20.10.23 | OrderpassedinSA No. 565 of2023 |
| 5. | 30.12.23 | Impugned Sale Notice |
| 6. | 20.12.23 | Order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 807/2023 by 2nd Defendant |
| 7. | 18.01.24 | Valuation Certificate with English translation |
3 . On the other hand, notices were issued to the 1st Defendant Bank, and the Counsel for the 1st Defendant Bank appeared before this Tribunal and filed Vakalat, Reply Statement, Written Argument & typed set of papers in which he has submitted that the Applicant is the Partner of the Partnership Firm namely, M/s. G.P. Constructions engaged in the Civil Works Contract Business and other Allied Business. The Applicant with other Partners approached the State Bank of India, SME Branch, Madurai with an Application dated 07.03.2023 requesting to renew the existing limits of the following facility:
| Facilities | Existing | Proposed | Interest | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash Credit | Rs. 2,50,00,000/ | Rs. 2,50,00,000/- | 17.25% | |
| Working Term Loan – |
Capital II |
Rs. 50,00,000/- | Rs. 50,00,000/- | 17.25% |
| Funded Term Loan – |
Interest II |
Rs. 40,00,000/- | Rs. 40,00,000/- | 9.25% |
| Term Loan – | II | Rs.1,90,00,000/- | Rs.1,90,00,000/- | 17.25% |
| Guaranteed Emergency Line |
Credit | Rs. 49,00,000/- | Rs. 49,00,000/- | 17.25% |
| Funded Term Loan – |
Interest I |
Rs. 4,00,000/- | Rs. 4,00,000/- | 17.25% |
In this regard, a letter of arrangement dated 27.03.2023 was executed by the Applicant and other 2 partners, the Guarantors, i.e. his wife Umamaheshwari & K. Murugesan in favour of the 1st Defendant Bank and Ms. Umamaheshwari mortgaged the property mentioned in the schedule as security towards the said facility. It is submitted that the Applicant is promptly servicing the interest towards the loan account is false. The other averment in respect of the labour problem, price raise in raw material, heavy
Page 9 of 16
SA No.87/2024
competition and delayed payment of Government besides demonetization, introduction of GST and COVID-19 Pandemic which affected the Highway Contract Work of the Applicant is false and introduced for the purpose of maintaining this SARFAESI Application. After availing the above said credit facility, the Defendants remain chronic defaulter in repaying the said facility availed with accrued interest from the State Bank of India, SME Branch Madurai, despite several reminders. Since, the Defendants failed to clear the outstanding despite receipt of several communications, the accounts as specified above maintained by the 1st Defendant becomes Non Performing Assets on 29.06.2023. Consequent to the same, a Demand Notice dated 30.06.2023 was issued to the Borrower and Guarantor u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the same was served to the Defendants on 03.07.2023.
It is further submitted that the Applicant was not prompt in repayment of loan from the date of availing the said credit facilities. As on 30.06.2023, the Applicant has to pay the loan amounts as follows:
In total the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,17,87,728/- (Rupees Six Crore Seventeen Lakhs Eighty seven Thousand seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only) with as on date interest comes to 17.25% per annum to the Defendant Bank with future interest with agreed penal interest.
It is further submitted that, admittedly, the Applicant and the guarantor had not given any reply to the 13 (2) Demand Notice and failed to repay the outstanding in the loan account. In the meantime, the said loan accounts were migrated from SBI, SME Branch to the Defendant Bank for the purpose of recovery and the Defendant Bank following the Demand Notice by the Possession Notice U/s. 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 was issued on 19.09.2023 and the same was served. The said notice was published in Tamil through 'Hindu Tamil Dhisai' and in English through 'The Times of India' daily Newspaper on 21.09.2023. It is true that the Possession Notice issued earlier on 12.09.2023 was withdrawn since, inadvertently there is a mistake in the fact in issuing the same. The Defendant Bank assures that no cost was charged towards the issuance of the said Possession Notice.
Page 10 of 16
SA No.87/2024
It is further submitted that challenging the said Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023, the Applicant preferred SARFAESI Application in SA No.565 of 2023. The Applicant has also not complied with the Interim stay Order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal which leads to vacate the stay granted in the said Application. Finally, the SA No. 565 of 2023 was dismissed by this Tribunal.
Thereafter, the 1st Defendant Bank issued E-Auction Sale Notice on 30.12.2023 and sale was scheduled on 09.02.2024. The said E-Auction Sale Notice was received by the Borrower and the Guarantor on 02.01.2024 and 03.01.2024 and affixed the same on the property and published the same in both Tamil & English dailies on 01.01.2024. Before proceeding with the E- Auction sale, proper valuation was obtained from the competent valuer by the 1st Defendant Bank twice. Since, the Petitioner had failed to hand over the Physical Possession of the property, the 1st Defendant Bank filed an Application U/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.MP.No. 807 of 2023 and allowed on 20.12.23 by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take the Physical Possession of the mortgaged property and to hand over the same to the 1st Defendant Bank.
In respect of restructuring of the loan account, the Applicant availed the loan facilities by executing necessary documents including Letter of Arrangement and Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement and availed various credit facilities as state above and created equitable mortgage by deposit of Title deeds over the Schedule Mentioned Properties in favour of the Defendant Bank. Subsequently, once again restructuration process before the committee was completed on 24.03.2023 and only on the recommendation of the committee, the present credit limit was sanctioned to the Applicant. Hence, the defence that there is no restructuration process for the credit facility availed is totally erroneous. Twice, restructuration was done to the Applicant.
Page 11 of 16
SA No.87/2024
It is further submitted that every notice as mandate under the SARFAESI Act was issued to the Applicant and the other borrower and Guarantor and the same was acknowledged. No request for issuance of the Statement of Account is made by the Applicant as on date. The change in rate of interest is not mandated to be stated in the Demand or Possession Notice. Outstanding dues mentioned in the said date. Paper Publication in respect of the 13(2) notice is not required when the same is received by the Borrower and Guarantor. Paper Publication in respect of 13(4) proceedings was enclosed in the Typed set of papers. Demand Notice, Possession Notice, Sale Notice and its AD Cards were enclosed. Affixture of the Sale Notice in the mortgaged property & Original photographs are enclosed.
It is further submitted that the Applicant is chronic defaulter in paying the principal and interest. Hence, classification of her account as NPA is in accordance with law. The Applicant had not filed the copy of the Application filed u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act and without filing the same, he cannot put his debate upon the amount mentioned in the same. Proper Valuation Report was obtained from the competent valuer. Outstanding dues were properly mentioned in the Application U/s. 14 and in the Sale Notice. And, the outstanding due is very higher and unless the entire mortgaged property is posted for sale, the Defendant Bank will not be in position to realize the amount from the Applicant. And, no specific grounds raised, why the impugned order of the Ld. CJM, Madurai is not maintainable. The Bank has filed necessary Application and Affidavit before the Ld. CJM, Madurai and only appreciating the same orders were passed by the Ld. CJM. No averments are there in the Application to attribute motive in selling the mortgaged property. As a public servant, the Authorized Officer is doing his act as per law.
It is further submitted that the Order passed by the Ld. CJM, Tirunelveli is not adjudicatory in nature and the same is in strict compliance of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the Petitioner had chosen to challenge the Possession Notice issued by the 1st Defendant Bank in SA No.
Page 12 of 16
SA No.87/2024
565 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Impugned Order passed u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act is nothing but an off shoot of the Possession Notice. In such a case, the Petitioner cannot challenge the order passed by the Ld. CJM after getting a dismissal of the SARFAESI Application challenging the Possession Notice.
Hence, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to DISMISS the above Application with exemplary cost and thus render justice.
Typed set of Papers filed by the Defendant Bank on 09.02.2024
| S.No. | Date | Particulars |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 30.06.2023 | Demand Notice u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act with Acknowledgement |
| 2. | 19.09.2023 | Possession Notice with Acknowledgment |
| 3. | 19.09.2023 | Photograph showing affixture of the Possession Notice |
| 4. | 21.09.2023 | Paper Publication in Hindu Tamil Thisai Tamil Dailyand Times of India English Daily |
| 5. | 20.10.23 | Order passed in SA No. 565 of 23 along with Petitionprayingfor stay |
| 6. | 22.11.23 | Order passed in SA No. 565 of 23 along with Petitionprayingfor Extension of Time |
| 7. | 30.12.23 | Sale Notice with Acknowledgment |
| 8 | 30.12.23 | Photograph showingaffixture of Possession Notice |
| 9. | 01.01.24 | Paper Publication in Hindu Tamil Thisai Tamil dailyand Times of India English daily |
Additional Typed set of Papers filed by the Defendant Bank
| S.No. | Date | Particulars |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 28.06.21 | Restructuration of the loan account in the name of the Applicant |
| 2 | 02.02.22 | Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds |
| 3 | 24.03.23 | Restructuration of the loan account in the name of the Applicant |
| 4 | 27.03.23 | Letter of Arrangement |
| 5. | 09.02.24 | Orders passed in the present SA dismissing the Stay Petition |
| 6. | 05.07.23 | Orderpassed in SA No. 565 of 2023 dismissingthe SA |
Page 13 of 16
SA No.87/2024
| 7. | --- | CERSAI report for theproperties |
|---|---|---|
| 8. | 12.07.23 | Valuation of theproperty |
| 9. | 11.09.23 | Valuation of the Property |
2nd Additional Typed set of Papers filed by the Defendant Bank
| S.No. | Date | Particulars |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30.12.23 Colour copy of the |
photographs proving the affixture of |
| the Sale Notice |
4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:-
I. Whether the Applicant has been able to prove his case in his favour?
II. Whether the Applicant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
5 . Having heard the parties and after going through the entire documents available on the records, this Tribunal find that there is no dispute with regard to the availment of loan facilities by creating equitable mortgage on his property. Since, the Applicant failed to repay the loan amount that made the loan account as NPA. It is the contention of the counsel for the Defendant Bank that the Applicant after availing the above said loan facilities, failed to re-pay the outstanding loan dues regularly. The Applicants stated in the SA that due to Labour problem, price rise in raw material, heavy competition in the field and delayed payment from Government besides demonetization, introduction of G.S.T. and COVID-19 Pandemic, Applicants Highway Contract work was affected and hence Applicant unable to pay the loan dues in time and there is no wilful default in repayment of the outstanding loan dues. I also find that thereafter, the Defendant Bank classified the loan account as NPA on 29.06.2023 and issued a Demand Notice U/s. 13(2) dated 30.06.2023 for a sum of Rs. 6,17,87,728/- (Rupees Six Crore Seventeen Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only). Thereafter, the Defendant Bank had issued a Possession Notice issued earlier on 12.09.2023 was withdrawn since, inadvertently, there is a mistake in the fact in issuing the same. The Defendant Bank assured that no cost was charged towards the issuance of the said Possession Notice. And then, another Possession Notice dated
Page 14 of 16
SA No.87/2024
19.09.2023 was issued u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 6,39,93,683/- (Rupees Six Crore Thirty Nine Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Three only), which was already challenged by the Applicant vide SA No. 565/2023 and the same was dismissed by this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 05.07.2024. Hence, the Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 was already decided on merits by this Tribunal and found that there is no irregularity in issuance of Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023.
Since, the Applicant failed to comply with the conditional stay order passed by this Tribunal in SA No. 565/2023, the stay granted was vacated and the 1st Defendant Bank obtained the Impugned Order dated 20.12.23 passed by the 2nd Defendant in Cr.M.P.No. 807/2023 and thereafter the Defendant Bank has issued Sale Notice dated 30.12.2023 fixing e-auction on 09.02.24.
The Applicant further submitted that the Defendant Bank without giving 30 days’ time has gone ahead to publish the e-auction Sale Notice. And, the Defendant Bank not published the Sale Notice in two leading newspapers and not affixed the same in the property. I perused the documents filed by the Defendant Bank and I find that the Defendant Bank has filed Sale Notice dated 30.12.2023 with AD Cards at page nos. 48 to 54 of Typed set of papers for having duly served the copy of Sale Notice to the Borrowers/Guarantors. And the Defendant Bank has filed the Photograph showing the affixture of Sale Notice dated 30.12.2023 at page nos. 1 to 3 of 2nd Additional Typed set of papers. And, at page nos. 58 to 61 of Typed set of papers the Bank has filed xerox copies of Paper Publication of Sale Notice dated 30.12.23 in Tamil daily “Hindu Tamil” dated 01.01.24 and in English daily “The Hindu” dated 01.01.24. Hence, the Defendant Bank has strictly followed the SARFAESI Act & Rules while issuing the Sale Notice dated 30.12.23. I also find that there is no irregularity found in issuance of the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Ld. CJM, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No. 807/2023.
Page 15 of 16
SA No.87/2024
The Applicant in his averment stated that the 1st Defendant has failed to take proper valuation for the secured assets before issuing Sale Notice dated 30.12.23 and further submitted that the Defendant Bank trying to bring the properties worth about Rs. 25 crores to recover a debt of Rs. 6,68,23,786/- I also find that the Defendant Bank has filed two Valuation Reports dated 12.07.23 & 11.09.23 at page nos. 69 to 149 and at page nos. 150 to 216 of Bank’s Additional typed set of papers, which were obtained before issuance of the Impugned Sale Notice dated 30.12.23. However, the Applicant has not filed any such Valuation Report to prove that the properties are worth about Rs. 25 crores.
In view of the above discussions, I find that the Applicant has failed to prove his case.
In the result, the SA No.87/2024 stands dismissed with no costs. Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of.
Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 29th September 2025.
sd/-
(SEEMA SINHA)
PRESIDING OFFICER
Uploaded on 09.10.2025
Page 16 of 16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant proved irregularities in the issuance of Sale Notice under SARFAESI Act.
Whether the applicant is entitled to relief to set aside the Sale Notice and Impugned Order under Section 14.
Whether the bank complied with valuation and publication requirements for the auction sale.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
4 provisions across 1 enactments
M.G. Pare
State Bank of India
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai District Court
SEEMA SINHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
