Allowed

Sri Veckaliamman Agencies v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

DRT20 May 2026SA/17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal set aside an impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate granting possession to a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the Magistrate failed to verify if the bank complied with statutory provisions regarding notice affixture and summons raising of objections, and the matter was allowed against the non-appearance of the bank.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 28.10.2024 was set aside. All expenditures incurred in obtaining such order are excluded from the loan account. The Defendant Bank is at liber

Sri Veckaliamman Agencies versus PNB Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 17/2025

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI

¶4

DATED THIS 20^th DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶6

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶7

SA No. 17/2025

¶8

Sri Veckaliamman Agencies,

¶9

Rep. by its Partner Mr. B. Narayanan, No. 280, 7^th Street,

¶10

Amman Nagar East, Vistharippu, Trichy – 620 010.

¶11

Mr. B. Narayanan,

¶12

No. 280, 7^th Street, Amman Nagar East, Vistharippu, Trichy – 620 010.

¶13

N. Priya, No. 280, 7^th Street, Amman Nagar East, Vistharippu, Trichy – 620 010. --- Applicants

¶14

-Vs-

¶15

The Authorised Officer, PNB Housing Finance Ltd., No. 6, (Old No. 8), 2^nd Floor, Shasthri Road, Thennur, Trichy – 620 018. --- Defendant

¶16

Appearance of Advocates: Mr. N. Balasubramanian ---- Counsel for the Applicants Defendant sets exparte

¶17

This SARFAESI Application was heard in the presence of Counsel for the Applicant and fixed for passing final order before me and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

Page 1 of 6

SA No. 17/2025

O R D E R

1 . This Application has been filed u/s.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the Applicants praying that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside all the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act. (i.e) The Impugned Order in Cr. M.P. No. 24757 of 2024 dated 28.10.2024 passed by Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy U/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶22

2 . The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicants are as follows:-

¶23

(i) The Applicants availed the Housing loan on executed secured interest by Registered Immoveable properties in favour of this defendant under Loan A/c. No. NHL/TRHY/1020/825925/ & NHL/TRHY/1117/450393. The applicants are residing at Trichy.

¶24

(ii) The defendant issued notice dated 18.05.2022 u/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 unilaterally declaring the applicant's loan account as N.P.A dated 12.04.2022 and demanding balance of outstanding Rs.55,35,994-36 ps.as on 18.05.2022.

¶25

(iii) Thereafter the defendant issued symbolic possession notice dated 14.09.2022 to the applicants for the balance of outstanding amount Rs.55,35,994.36/- as on 18.05.2022 u/s, 13(8) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. (iv) There after the defendant issued notice dated 25.04.2024 u/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for second time demanding balance of outstanding amount Rs. 74,15,436.47/- as on 25.04.2024 on the same NPA dated 12.05.2022.

¶26

(v) Now this defendant without annexing the copy of the order of Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy in Crl.M.P.No.24757 of 2024 dated 28.10.2024 and without disclosing the balance of outstanding amount but fixed the date on 15.11.2024 for taking physical possession through Advocate commissioner Notice.Dtd.08.11.2024. The Advocate Commissioner

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

SA No. 17/2025

¶29

Notice itself is a short Notice which is contrary to principles of Natural Justice.

¶30

(vi) The defendant in all his notices under SARFAESI Act, 2002 did not disclose the compliance of his statutory obligations u/s. 26D of SARFAESI Act. Hence the defendant has no enforcement right under Chapter III of SARFAESI Act for recovery of balance of outstanding amount.

¶31

(vii) This defendant had not complied the mandatory provisions of section 13(3) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 in demanding the balance of outstanding amount by providing details of amount as per section 5 of Bankers Books Evidence Act. Hence the demand made by the defendant has no prima facie evidence.

¶32

(viii) The applicants so far paid 25% of balance of outstanding amount. But the defendant imposed compound interest against the terms of the loan which is contrary to law.

¶33

GROUNDS

¶34

A. The Defendant has no right of Recovery as he has not disclosed the compliance of his statutory obligation u/s 26 D of SARFASI.Act.2002.

¶35

B. The Notice dated 08.11.2024 issued by Advocate Commissioner is short Notice of 7 days which is itself contrary to principles of Natural Justice and it was issued in consequence of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy Order dated 28.10.2024 u/s. 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶36

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES:

¶37

Trichirapalli District & Registration District, Trichy Joint I & II Sub Registration District, Alathur Village (ward T), an extent of Acre 1.84 cents in Ayan Nanja Survey No. 2/3 an extent of Acre 0.07 cents in Ayan Nanja

¶38

Page 3 of 6

¶39

SA No. 17/2025

¶40

Survey No. 3/4, an Extent of Acre 0.53 cents in Survey No.3/5 totally an extent Acre 2.44 Cents in which an extent of Acre 1.64 cents and an extent of Arce 0.74 cents in Survey No. 12/1 Totally an extent of Acre 2.38 cents of land has been converted into house sites in named and style of (M. K. Kottai) "Amman Nagar" which Plot No.280 situate within the following FOUR BOUNDARIES:

¶41

North by : 20 Ft, East-West Common Road, South by : Plot No. 271, West by : Plot No. 281 East by : Plot No. 279

¶42

Within these Boundaries East West on the both sides 30 Ft., South North on the both sides 43 Feet, Totally an Extent of 1290 Sq. Feet of property and the building to be constructed thereon with EB service connection, with all easements and pathways rights. This Property situated in Survey No.12/1, within the limit of Thiruverumbur Panchayat.

¶43

The Applicants have submitted the following List of documents in support of his claim in the SA, which are as follows:

¶44

S. No.	Date	Description
1.	14.09.2022	Possession Notice U/s 13(4)of SARFAESI Act
2.	25.04.2024	Demand Notice U/s 13(2)of SARFAESI Act.
3.	28.10.2024	Order passed by CJM, Trichy under Sec. 14 of
		SARFAESI Act.
4.	08.11.2024	Advocate Commissioner Notice

¶45

3 . On the other hand, the Defendant Bank did not appear before this Tribunal inspite of service of notices, hence this case was heard Ex-Parte.

¶46

4. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE PLEADINGS, THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS :-

¶47

WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO GET THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR ?

¶48

Page 4 of 6

¶49

SA No. 17/2025

¶50

5 . Having heard the parties and after going through the entire documents available on records, and also after considering the arguments by the Counsel, I find that it is admitted fact that the Applicants have taken loan from the Defendant Bank but the Applicants failed to repay the loan amount as such the loan account has been classified as NPA. The Applicant in his averment stated that the Bank has issued Demand Notice u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 25.04.2022 and also issued Possession Notice u/s 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the Applicant stated that the Bank has failed to affix the Possession Notice on the conspicuous part of the property.

¶51

Further, the applicant contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy has passed order in Cr. M.P. No. 24757/2024 on 28.10.2024 under Sec 14 of SARFAESI Act and he had failed to verify as to whether the provision of the Act has been followed by defendant bank or not. The CJM, Trichy failed to see that the applicant does not contain the necessary particulars, annexure and affidavit which is mandatory. Hence, the CJM, Trichy ought to have rejected the application filed by the Defendant Bank U/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶52

I also perused the order of the CJM, Trichy in which he has clearly mentioned that the Defendant Bank has served the Possession Notice to the applicant and published the same in two leading News Paper, but there is no mention of affixture of Possession Notice in his order which mandatory part of the proceeding.

¶53

On the other hand, the Defendant Bank did not appear inspite of service of notice to rebut the allegation of the applicants by filing evidences.

¶54

Further, the Applicants had not placed any material evidence before this Tribunal to substantiate his claim that the classification of loan account as NPA is wrong and rate of interest has been charged excessively against the guidelines of RBI.

¶55

Page 5 of 6

¶56

SA No. 17/2025

¶57

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of provisions mentioned in the SARFAESI Act, I find that applicant’s allegations were not rebutted by the defendant bank by filing any evidence in-spite of knowledge of this case, hence, this case is liable to be allowed.

¶58

In the result,

¶59

(a) SA No. 17/2025 is allowed as prayed for.

¶60

(b) The Impugned Order passed by the Ld. CJM, Trichy in Cr. M.P. No. 24757/2024 dated 28.10.2024 is hereby set aside.

¶61

(c) All the expenditures incurred in obtaining the Impugned Order passed by the Ld. CJM, Trichy in Cr. M.P. No. 24757/2024 dated 28.10.2024 and all the expenditures incurred in respect of issuance of Possession Notice etc. shall not be included in the loan account of the Applicant.

¶62

(d) The Defendant Bank is at liberty to initiate fresh action against the Applicant as per the SARFAESI Acts & Rules. Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of. No costs.

¶63

Dictated to Typist (SKP), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 20^th May, 2026.

¶64

Sd/(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶65

Uploaded on 30.05.2026

¶66

Page 6 of 6

Sri Veckaliamman Agencies v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Veckaliamman Agencies v. PNB Housing Finance 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

State Bank of India versus M Kunguma Selvi

Uco Bank versus Kavitha

Indian Bank versus Viji Engineering

Federal Bank versus K Karthikeyan

Bharath Times versus Karur Vysya Bank

A S Guru Ambath versus State Bank of India