Dismissed

N Rasheeda Begum v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT7 Jan 2026SA/15/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-III, Chennai dismissed the applicant's application for a stay on an auction sale notice. The court found the applicant to be a third party with no locus to challenge the sale measures initiated against her brother and her partners.

What did the court decide?

IA No.50/2026 for stay of the sale notice stands dismissed.

What the court decided

N Rasheeda Begum versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 15/2026

¶2

07.01.2026

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the, 7^th January 2026

¶5

SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶6

IA. No.50 of 2026 in SA. No.15 of 2026

¶7

N. Rasheeda Begum W/o Mr. Nizamuddin, Door No.31 & 32, Ammaiammal Street, Pulianthope,

¶8

Perambur, Chennai – 600 012.

¶9

.... Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, No.45 Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030, Rep. by its Chief Manager and Authorized Manager, Mr. Venkatesan for Madipakkam Branch.

¶13

The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Madipakkam Branch, Dharshan Complex, 1^st Floor, D.No.1, Vigneshwara Nagar, Madipakkam, Medavakkam High Road,

¶14

Chennai – 600 091.

¶15

Z. Dilhara Begum W/o Mr. Zakeer, Prop. M/s. 3 Dimensions No.28/81, 1^st Floor, Next to hotel Raj Bhavan, Millers road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶16

Mr. Zakeer, S/o Hussain Ali, Flat No.1402, Tower No.33, 14^th Floor, North Town Chetna apartment, Perambur, Chennai – 600 012.

¶17

SA No. 15/2026

¶18

07.01.2026

¶19

Mr. Mohammed Ali, S/o. Nazeerullah Khan No.34 & 35, Ammaiammal Street, Pulianthope,

¶20

Perambur, Chennai – 600 012. ….Defendants

¶21

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶22

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. CKM. Appaji Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A. Karthikeyan

¶23

ORDER IN IA No. 50/2026

¶24

The Applicant is the 3^rd party to the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank, who has filed the present SA challenging the Action Sale Notice dated 18.11.2025, fixing the sale to be held on 09.01.2026 for recovery of sum of Rs.1,54,47,606.17p. Along with the SA, Applicant has filed IA No.49/2026 for urgent hearing and IA No.50/2026 for stay of the sale notice respectively.

¶25

In the affidavit of the stay application, it is contented that the applicant is the absolute owner of the property being No.31 and 32, Old No.4/1 and 4/2 Ammaiammal Street, Pulianthope, Perambur Barracks Road, Old RS No.79/1, New TS No.79/4 and 79/5 Perambur Village, Chennai – 600 012 which was purchased by the Applicant under Registered Sale Deed dated 03.03.2018 registered as Document No.4231/2008 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar Pursaiwakkam and the applicant is residing in the property along with family members.

¶26

The 4^th Respondent is a practising Advocate and 3^rd Respondent is the wife of the 4^th Respondent. The Applicant along with one Arif Ali was carrying on business of TV resale and had availed a Mortgage Loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s. Kataria Finance, which borrowing was defaulted and the financier gave repeated trouble to the applicant and her Partner

¶27

SA No. 15/2026

¶28

07.01.2026

¶29

Mr. Arif Ali. It is further submitted that the 4^th Respondent lend a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the applicant from his business concern, M/s. Dimensions and the applicant along with the other partner raised another loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the own sources and cleared the mortgage loan of M/s Kataria Finance. The 4^th Respondent while granting the loan had convinced the applicant to handover her property as Collateral security to raise loan for his business and also the Applicant executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the 4^th Respondent.

¶30

It is contended that the 1^st Respondent issued a Demand Notice on 02.07.2021 addressed to the 5^th Respondent Mr. Mohammed Ali and also to the applicant’s address. The notice was issued calling upon the Respondents 3 to 5 to make a payment of Rs.83,37,159.20p within a period of 60 days, failing which the bank would initiate further under Section 14 of the Act.

¶31

It is contended that the applicant has no brother named Mohammed Ali and the 4^th Respondent fabricated documents in the name of fictious person Mohammed Ali and thereafter allured the applicant to sign the Document No.758/2016 in the pretext of Power of Attorney. Thereafter, the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents have created Equitable Mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of 2^nd Respondent and availed a loan of Rs.60,00,000/-. Applicant has filed a complaint before the CCB Chennai in Crime No.79 DC and also complained before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry in complain No.487/2019 to initiate action against the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents.

¶32

The First Respondent along with Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Ld.CMM, Egmore in CRL.MP No.31668/2022 came to the property and attempted to take physical possession of the property.

¶33

Applicant had filed O.S. No.5354/2016 on the file of III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai seeking for Judgement and Decree and to

¶34

SA No. 15/2026

¶35

07.01.2026

¶36

declare that the settlement deed dated 16.02.2016 registered as Doc. No.758/2016 as null and void and further to declare the Memorandum of Deposit of settlement deed by Defendants 3 to 5 in favour of the bank as null and void.

¶37

The Applicant was surprised to see the Sale Notice dated 18.11.2025 putting the property for sale on 09.01.2026 at 1 PM. Hence the present SA along with IA for stay for Auction Sale Notice dated 18.11.2025 is filed.

¶38

Counsel for the Caveator Respondent Bank is present and submits that the Applicant is the 3^rd party and is the sister of the 5^th Respondent to whom the applicant has settled the property vide settlement deed dated 16.02.2016 and also executed a Power of Attorney. However, the applicant is contending that the Power of Attorney is not executed.

¶39

The respondent bank further submits that the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents are the Borrowers and 5^th Respondent is the Mortgagor who has mortgaged the property and deposited the settlement deed dated 16.02.2016. Hence the Respondent contends that the applicant has no locus to filed the present SA challenging the Sale Notice dated 18.11.2025 and opposes for granting any stay of the sale notice.

¶40

Heard on IA for stay.

¶41

On perusal of the records and it is evident from the submission of both the counsels that Applicant is the 3^rd party to the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank. Infact the applicant is the Owner of the property who had settled the property vide Settlement Deed dated 16.02.2016 in favour of the 5^th Respondent, Mohammed Ali. It is also seen from the Section 14 order that the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents are the Borrowers and the 5^th Respondent Mohammed Ali is the mortgagor who had mortgaged the property favouring the Respondent Bank towards credit facilities availed by Respondents 2, 3 and 4. In fact, the 5^th Respondent has

¶42

SA No. 15/2026

¶43

07.01.2026

¶44

deposited the title deeds vide settlement deed dated 16.02.2016 with the intention to create a mortgage.

¶45

On default in repayment as per agreed terms, the loan was classified as NPA on 31.07.2019 and a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) dated 02.07.2021 is issued. It is specifically contended by the Respondent Bank that the Demand Notice issued to Respondent No.3 is received and the applicant along with 5^th Respondent have raised the objection to the Demand Notice under Section 13(3A) in July 2024.

¶46

It is a matter of fact that the applicant filed O.S. 5354/2024 a copy of the plaint dated 11.07.2024 is produced at Page No.65 to 79, is filed on 11.07.2024, after classification of the loan as NPA on 31.07.2019 and after the issuance of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 02.07.2021 and the Possession Notice dated 07.07.2023. Thus, it is evident from the records that the applicant and 5^th Respondent are sister and brother and the applicant had filed O.S. No.5354/2024 only after the property has been mortgaged by the 5^th Respondent.

¶47

The Borrower and Mortgagor have defaulted in the repayment and the Bank has initiated the measures and admittedly the Section 13(2) notice is received, to which the applicant along with her brother have raised objection. The Applicant has not made any case for interference by the Tribunal in the auction sale to be held on 09.01.2026.

¶48

For the foregoing reasons, IA No.50/2026 stands dismissed. Emergent Notice to Respondents R3 to R5. List the matter on 13.01.2026 for report of status of bids and for counter.

¶49

(Dictated to Deepika, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 7^th day of January, 2026)

¶50

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

N Rasheeda Begum v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

N Rasheeda Begum v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Felix Arokiarajan

State Bank of India versus Buchappa Fuels

Kanniyappan N and Dharageswari K versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Periyakkal Traders, Rep by Its Proprietor Mr.P.Dharmalingam

State Bank of India versus Arivalagan

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Stejo Bright Steel Industries Rep by Its Proprietor Mr a Stephen Raj