Disposed

M Santhanam v. State Bank of India

DRT23 Mar 2026SA/176/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chennai disposed of Securitization Application SA 176/2026 filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Accepting the applicant's undertaking to vacate and the bank's submission for an extension, the Tribunal granted two months, directing physical handover by 28.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Allowing the undertaking affidavit on record, the Tribunal granted the applicant two months time to vacate the premises and hand over physical possession to the bank by 28.05.2026.

M Santhanam versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.176/2026

23.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 176 of 2026

¶9

M.Santhanam S/o Murugesan No.17, 2^nd Floor, 2^nd Cross Street, Samipillai Thottam, Puducherry.

¶10

Mrs. Sarasu S/o M.Santhanam No.17, 2^nd Floor, 2^nd Cross Street, Samipillai Thottam, Puducherry.

¶11

Mrs. Sivagamasundari S/o Elangovan No.17, 2^nd Floor, 2^nd Cross Street, Samipillai Thottam, Puducherry.

¶12

Mrs.Valli W/o Mr.Jagadeesan No.17, 2^nd Floor, 2^nd Cross Street, Samipillai Thottam, Puducherry.

¶13

A.Rajalakshmi W/o Mr.Arumugam No.17, 2^nd Floor, 2^nd Cross Street, Samipillai Thottam, Puducherry. …Applicants

¶14

State Bank of India, Rep by its Authorised Officer, No.7, Jai Krishna Plaza, 1^st Floor, Iyyanar Kovil Main Street, Ellaipillai Chavadi, Puducherry-605 005.

¶15

R.Ramkumar

SA No.176/2026

23.03.2026

S/o Charavarthi@Ramalingam, No.34, Chittankudi Road, Saaram, Pudducherry-13

¶20

A.V.Sathiya W/o Gopinathan,

¶21

Gopinathan S/o Kuppusamy, Both residing No.63, 5^th Cross Street Sabthagiri Nagar, Karuvadikuppam Lawspet, Puducherry-605 008. …Respondents

¶22

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶23

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. Senthil Kumaar Counsel for Respondent : M/s. K. Chandrasekaran

¶24

ORDER ON SA 176 /2026

¶25

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed 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].

¶26

The applicant has challenged the Section 14 order dated 12.01.2026 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale notice is Rs.61,64,632/-.

¶27

Applicant claiming to be a tenant in the property is relying on an unregistered lease agreement. However, after filing the SA, the applicant has filed an undertaking affidavit that although they have challenged the Section 14 order dated 12.01.2026, undertakes to vacate the premises and

SA No.176/2026

23.03.2026

hand over the vacant position within a period of three months from the date of affidavit. Hence, prays to take the affidavit on record.

¶32

Counsel for the bank submits that though they had initially agreed for one month time, but now they are ready to extend another one month for the applicant to vacate the premises.

¶33

Considering both the submissions, taking the affidavit of applicant on record and the submission of the bank Counsel, the Tribunal grants two months time for the applicant to vacate the premises as undertaken, failing which the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further.

¶34

Applicant is hereby directed to handover the physical possession of the secured asset to respondent bank on or before 28.05.2026 failing which bank is at liberty to execute the Section 14 order and proceed in accordance with the Act.

¶35

Accordingly, SA is disposed off. All the pending IAs stands closed Interim order, if any stands vacated.

¶36

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

¶37

(S.V.GOWRAMMA)

¶38

(Dictated to Steno (Arti), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this

¶39

the 23^rd day of March, 2026)

M Santhanam v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Santhanam v. State Bank of India

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 Gramin Bank versus Shri Hardev Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Sikander Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Smt. Swaran Kaur

State Bank of India versus Sh. Shashikant Pandey

Ms Shri Kaushal Chana Parmal Bhandar versus Union Bank of India

Ms Kedia Brothers versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited