Dismissed

Premalatha s v. Repco Home Finance Limited

DRT16 Mar 2026SA/180/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application challenging a Section 14 order for possession of secured assets, the Debt Recovery Tribunal held the order valid despite delay beyond the 30-day limit as directory not mandatory. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the applicant waived objections by failing to challenge the possession notice within the limitation period under Section 17.

What did the court decide?

Present Securitization Application (SA) is dismissed; interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Premalatha s versus Repco Home Finance Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 180 of 2024

¶8

S.Premalatha

¶9

Wife of Late M. Saravanan Residing at Plot No.15, New No.3/290, Old No.552, Kumaran Nagar,

¶10

Veppampattu, Thiruvallur District- 602 024.

¶11

S.Dinesh

¶12

Son of Late M.Saravanan Residing at Plot No.15, New No.3/290, Old No.552, Kumaran Nagar, Veppampattu, Thiruvallur District- 602 024. ….Applicants

¶13

-Vs-

¶14

The Authorized Officer, M/s. Repco Home Finance Limited, Plot No.4055, U Block, No.10, 1st Floor, Upp. Punjab National Bank, 4th Main Road, Anna Nagar West,

¶15

Chennai- 600 040. ….Respondent

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S. Balaji & P. Murugan Counsel for respondent : M/s. A. Iiangovan, R. Nisha, K. Prakash, D. Mary Davisy.

¶18

ORDER ON SA 180/2024

¶19

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 26.03.2024

¶20

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

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶25

The applicant has challenged Sec.14 order dated 01.02.2024 in Crl.MP. No.10862 of 2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.37,38,376/-

¶26

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶27

The case as put forth is that first applicant's husband Late M. Saravanan had availed loan facility to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs during 2015 from the respondent bank, was regular in repayment of EMIs without any delay or default. The applicant's husband died during 2019 due to throat cancer. Thereafter due to Pandemic Covid19, applicants suffered financial constraints, despite attempts were made to pay the dues.

¶28

The respondent without considering the same had issued demand notice dated 30.06.2021 followed by Possession Notice dated 17.05.2022. On 19.02.2024, one person stating himself to be Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court came and affixed the notice calling upon the applicants to vacate and hand over the property within 7 days. Respondent institution without following the procedures as mandated under law and without affording reasonable opportunity to applicants, had approached Ld. CJM to take physical possession of the secured asset.

¶29

In the grounds, it is contended that the respondent bank against all legal principles and in violation of natural justice has proceeded under the Act. The order passed is in contravention of Sec. 14(1)(b)(ix) of SARFAESI

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

Act, lacks legal sanctity. The Provision to sub-section (b)(ix) of sec. 14(1) of SARFAESI Act, contemplates that the order for the purpose of taking possession of the secured asset has to be made within a period of 30 days from the date of application on 02.12.2022 and the order has been passed on 01.02.2024 nearly 14 months after the petition is file which is in clear violation of the Rule detailed in sec. 14 of SARFAESI Act.

¶34

Further the Act contemplate that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate is unable to pass the order within the period of 30 days for reasons beyond his control he may after recording reasons in writing for the same pass order within such period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days which has not been followed in the present case and as such the order is void and not legally sustainable.

¶35

The payment amount aggregating nearly Rs.21,85,000/- made by the applicants to the respondent has not been duly accounted and the statement of account stated to have been filed before the CJM is a selfserving document prepared by the respondent and not substantiated.

¶36

If the applicant is evicted from the residential property and if possession taken as per the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Applicants would be left high and dry in the streets with no place to reside. Further the daughter of the first applicant is residing is pregnant and her condition is precarious needing extra care and in the present situation if the Advocate Commissioner were to execute the orders, it would cause severe

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

loss and hardship to the applicants which has to be duly considered against the interest of the respondent.

¶41

The notice of the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset is silent on the description of the asset which has to be taken and the order is bereft of details regarding the schedule of the secured asset and such the order suffers lacunae and infirmities. The said order cannot be acted upon by the Advocate Commissioner in the absence of description of the secured asset and such the order is bad in law.

¶42

On these grounds the applicant prays to set aside the Sec.14 order passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Tiruvallur.

¶43

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶44

The respondent institution has filed the counter inter alia contending that the SA filed by the applicant is not maintainable. It is the case of the respondent that the 1st applicant as Co-borrower-I, her husband Late M. Saravanan as borrower and her son the 2nd applicant Mr.S. Dinesh as Coborrower-II had availed a prosperity Loan of Rs.25,00,000/- vide Loan A/c. No.2571820000988, Old A/c.No.1931820000260 on 11.09.2015 from the respondent.

¶45

The Applicants had agreed to repay the loan amount in 120 EMI of Rs.40,334/- as security for the due repayment of the loan, the Late M. Saravanan had created equitable mortgage over the subject property by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 14.09.2015 in Doc.No.10571/2015, on the Sub-Registrar of Thiruvallur in favour of the

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

respondent. The loan was guaranteed by one Mr.P. Ramachandran and security interest was also registered with CERSAI on 14.09.2015.

¶50

The Applicants availed the loan accepting the sanction terms and conditions, miserably failed to adhere to the repayment terms. Despite repeated assurances by the Applicants, the loan account was irregular owing to nonpayment of the dues as per the terms and conditions of the loan documents. Hence, the loan account slipped down to NPA on 30.10.2018 and the Applicants failed and ignored either to regularize the account or to repay the dues in full.

¶51

Therefore, the delay in initiating the SARFAESI proceeding is only on the fault of the applicant who made representations to regularize the account or to be closed in short span of time. The respondent had issued a Demand Notice dated 30.06.2021 demanding to pay a sum of Rs.29,30,683/- together with further interest from 29.06.2021 which is duly served on the Applicants and the guarantors. The Demand Notice is also affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset.

¶52

In spite of receipt of the Demand Notice, the Applicants evaded the payment of demand made by the Respondent by citing one reason or other. Hence the Respondent were left with no other option except to' send a possession notice U/s.13 (4) of the Act on 17.05.2022, by taking the symbolic possession of the property and the acknowledgement cards produced as proof of service of notice to the Applicants and the Co borrowers. The possession notice is also affixed in the conspicuous place of

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

the secured asset. In terms of the S.13(4) possession notice, the Applicants and the Co-borrower have to pay a sum of Rs.34,25,570/- together with further interest from 16.05.2022, and possession notice was duly published in two newspapers one in English daily "The New Sunday Express" and another one in Tamil Daily "Dhinamani" both 22.05.2022.

¶57

It is submitted that the Respondent had filed an application before the Ld. CJM at Thiruvallur, under section 14 of SARFAESI Act, for seeking the assistance of Ld. CJM at Thiruvallur to take physical possession of the petition in Crl.M.P.No. 10862 of 2022 and the same was allowed on 01.02.2024. The Applicants had challenged the section 14 order passed by the Ld. CJM at Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10862 of 2022 with untenable grounds and the same is unsustainable under law. The applicant had complied with the second conditional order imposed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶58

The Respondent Institution denies all the averments made in the present SA and also followed all the measures as required. Hence respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶59

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case

¶60

It is a matter of record that the 1st applicant as Co-borrower-I, her husband Late M. Saravanan as borrower and her son the 2nd applicant Mr.S. Dinesh as Co-borrower-II had availed a prosperity Loan of

¶61

SA No.180/2024 7 16.03.2026 Rs.25,00,000/vide Loan A/c. No.2571820000988, Old

¶62

A/c.No.1931820000260 on 11.09.2015 from the respondent.

¶63

The borrower Late M. Saravanan had created equitable mortgage by way of Memorandum of Deposited of Title Deeds dated 14.09.2015 which is registered as Doc.No.10571.2015 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thiruvallur which is produced at Pg.13-18. The equitable mortgage is registered before the central registry dated 14.09.2015, and the respondent bank had filed CERSAI report duly evidencing registration of the security interest with the central registry which is produced at Pg.1920 of counter.

¶64

The borrower Late M. Saravanan is deceased; death certificate and Legal heir Certificate of M. Saravanan is produced at Pg.37 and 38 of respondent institution reflecting the legal heirs of Late M. Saravanan.

¶65

In fact the borrower and Co-Borrower –I & II, does not dispute the availing of the facilities and the mortgage of the property including the default in the repayment. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the borrower and Co-Borrower-I & II was classified as NPA on 30.10.2018 in accordance with RBI guidelines.

¶66

Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the respondent institution has issued S.13(2) Demand Notice dated 30.06.2021, where the notice clearly describes the types of loan availed, the nature of facility and the documents. Further the description of the properties is clearly mentioned in the S.13(2) demand notice.

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice is sent by RPAD which the applicants and the Co-borrowers, have received the Demand Notice as per the Acknowledgement card produced by the respondent institution at Pg.2426, and the Demand Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.27-28 of respondent institution. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice as the borrowers and the guarantors did not liquated the liability within 60 days and nor raised any objections to the demand made, the respondent institution has proceeded further under the Act.

¶71

The respondent institution has issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 17.05.2022 and the notice sent through RPAD, which the applicants and the Co-borrowers have received the Possession Notice as per the Acknowledgement Card produced at Pg.31-33. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Sunday Express” and another one in Tamil “Dhinamani” both dated 22.05.2022 and the Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced by the respondent institution at Page No.34 of their type set.

¶72

Thus, the respondent institution has established the due compliance of the procedures as prescribed in issuing the S.13[2] demand notice and S.13[4] possession notice under the Act and Rules made thereunder. As the borrowers and mortgager did not liquate the liability in spite of receipt of the demand notice and the possession notice, the respondent has proceeded further with SARFAESI measures.

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

It is an admitted fact that applicant has not challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 17.05.2022 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.

¶77

As the applicants failed to repay the entire outstanding amount the bank has proceeded and approached the CJM, Thiruvallur 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 01.02.2024.

¶78

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. R. Rajasekar, as the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property, take inventories if necessary and thereafter take physical possession of the petition schedule mentioned property and hand over the same to the bank.

¶79

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 01.02.2024 directing the Advocate Commissioner to take the possession of the property.

¶80

The specific contention of the applicant that the Ld. Magistrate has not passed the Order within a period of 30 days from the date of application

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

on 02.12.2022 and the order has been passed on 01.02.2024 nearly 14 months after the S.14 application is filed is in clear violation of the Rule detailed in sec. 14 of SARFAESI Act is not maintainable as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue in the case of C. BRIGHT vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3441 OF 2020] The Supreme Court has held that time limit stipulation in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act mandating the District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset, is directory and not mandatory and that the inability to take possession within time limit does not render the District Magistrate Functus Officio.

¶85

31. Further Section 14 of the Act provides the procedure for Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. The proviso empowers the authority to pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured asset within a period of thirty days from the date of application. Second Proviso states that, if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such period not exceeding in the aggregate sixty days.

¶86

32. Further it is pertinent to note that the borrower, guarantor or lessee are not prejudiced or affected when S.14 application is decided in 60, 70 or 80 days, on the other hand the same would affect the secured creditor if the provision is construed as mandatory and not directory. The court held

¶87

that such a construction would delay the process of taking physical

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

possession of assets instead of expediting such process by entailing the filing of another application for such purpose.

¶92

33. As it has not prejudiced the appellant and in fact the applicant got additional 14 months’ time be on the property and has failed to point out any irregularity in the measures taken by the secured creditor under the Act.

¶93

On the other hand, though the statutory notices, the Demand Notice dated 30.06.2021 and Possession Notice dated 17.05.2022 are issued to the applicants in accordance to law, applicants have waived right to raise any contention with regard to Sec.13(4) Possession Notice within the period of 45 days. Hence any contentions to Sec.13(4) Notice is barred by limitation.

¶94

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 non- adjudicatory 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.

¶95

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra has held that Court is only required 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

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix

¶100

ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶101

“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”.

¶102

The Supreme Court in the judgment of Authorized Officer, Indian

¶103

Bank v D Visalakshi and other, has held that a Chief Judicial Magistrate

¶104

is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the Sec.14 dated 01.02.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.10862/2022 passed by Ld. CJM, Thiruvallur is a valid Order.

¶105

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.

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

39. T hus, the Sec.14 order passed by the Ld. Section 14 order dated 01.02.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.10862.2022 passed by CJM, Thiruvallur is after due consideration of the application, affidavit in support of compliance of procedures along with documents is an execution Order issued where no adjudication is required. The Order is passed considering the due compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix].

¶110

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 account as NPA.

¶111

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] dated 30.06.2021 and S.13[4] Possession Notice dated 17.05.2022 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶112

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/-

¶113

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

¶114

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 16^th day of March, 2026)

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶120

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Demand Notice U/sec.13(2) dated 30.06.2021.	A-1
2.	Possession Notice U/sec.13(4) dated 17.05.2022.	A-2
3.	Order in Crl.M.P.No.10862/2022 dated 01.02.2024.	A-3
4.	Advocate Notice dated 17.02.2024.	A-4

¶121

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶122

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Loan application dated 15.06.2015.	R-1
2.	Loan Sanction Letter in A/c.No.1931820000260 dated 11.09.2015.	R-2
3.	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds, vide document No.10571/2015 in SRO Thiruvallur dated 14.09.2015.	R-3
4.	CERSAI Report dated 14.09.2015.	R-4
5.	13(2) demand notice with acknowledgement cards dated 30.06.2021.	R-5
6.	Affixture photograph of 13(2) demand notice.	R-6
7.	Possession notice with acknowledgement cards dated 17.05.2022.	R-7
8.	Affixture photograph of Possession notice.	R-8
9.	Possession notice published in English daily "The New Sunday Express"dated 22.05.2022.	R-9
10.	Possession notice published in Tamil daily "Dhinamani"dated 22.05.2022.	R-10
11.	Death certificate M.Saravanan dated 28.09.2014.	R-11
12.	Legal Heir Certificate of M.Saravanan dated 03.06.2019.	R-12
13.	Order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.10862 of 2022 dated 01.02.2024.	R-13
14.	Statement of Accounts.	R-14

¶123

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶124

All that piece and parcel of land and building admeasuring 1800 sq.ft, Plot No.15, comprised in Survey No.103/3, 103/10, situated at

SA No.180/2024

16.03.2026

No.89, Veppampattu village, approved by No.C.S.A.R/D.D.C.B.8794/L.B.61, Thiruvallur Taluk and District, within the Sub-Registration District of Thiruvallur, Registration District of Kancheepuram and bounded as follows:

¶129

North by : Plot No.16 South by : Plot No.14 East by : Plot No.1 West by : 23 feet road Measurements:

¶130

East to West on the Northern side : 60 feet East to West on the Southern side : 60 feet

¶131

North to South on the Eastern side : 30 feet North to South on the Western side : 30 feet

¶132

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

Premalatha s v. Repco Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premalatha s v. Repco Home Finance Limited

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

Karur Vysya Bank versus Zulaikha Motors PvtLtd

P Sivaramakrishnan versus Union Bank of India

Bank of India versus M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi

Rizwan versus Dcb Bank Limited

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Subathira

M s Paterson Cancer Center P Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank