Dismissed

A J Satheshkumar v. Idbi Bank

DRT20 Mar 2026SA/198/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Section 17 application challenging a Section 14 possession order. The court held that Section 14 proceedings are ministerial and non-adjudicatory, noting the bank complied with statutory notices and procedures. The applicant's failure to challenge the possession notice within the limitation period also barred their contention.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No. 198 of 2024 filed by the applicant was dismissed, vacating any interim order granted.

A J Satheshkumar versus Idbi Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 198 of 2024

¶8

Mr. A.J. Satheshkumar, S/o. A.Janarthanan, No.5A, Flat No. 1F, Kuppusamy Pillai Street, Jesupatham Nagar, Nandhivaram, Guduvanchery, Chennai - 603 202.

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

IDBI Bank Limited, Rep by its Deputy General Manager, Shri. Naveen Kumar Agarwal, No.115, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. RKM Suresh, Adhitya.D, M. Pugazhanthi.

¶14

Counsel for respondent : M/s. NVS & Associates

¶15

ORDER ON SA 198/2024

¶16

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 04.04.2024 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].

¶17

The applicant has challenged the Sec.14 order dated 22.03.2024 in C.M.P. No.5129 of 2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.37,05,005.51/-

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶22

The applicant had availed loan facility from respondent bank during the year 2015, and offered his immovable property as security for due repayment of loan and was regular in repayment of EMIs without any delay or default till 2021. Thereafter, due to business loss, applicant could not continue to repay the interest portion alone and requested time for regularization, however, respondent without affording reasonable opportunity to applicant to settle the loan or regularize have proceeded with their SARFAESI measures.

¶23

It is further submitted that after receiving Demand Notice, applicant had remitted substantial payments on various dated 1) 21.05.2022 a payment of Rs.2,00,000/- 2) 27.05.2022 a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- 3) 23.06.2022 a payment of Rs.1,65,600/- 4) 03.06.2023 a payment of Rs.3,32,000/- which were not properly credited to the loan account by respondent bank and the same was not mentioned by the respondent bank in their application under Section 14 before Ld. CJM, Chengalpet.

¶24

On these grounds the applicant prays to set aside the Sec.14 order dated 22.03.2024 in C.M.P. No.5129 of 2023 passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpet.

¶25

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶26

It is the case of the bank that the Applicant approached the Respondent Bank for a Mortgage loan of Rs.49,90,000/- which was

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

sanctioned vide Sanction Letter 20.02.2015. The terms of the Sanction were duly acknowledged by the Applicant and Co-Borrower.

¶31

The loan and security documents was executed by Applicant in favour of the Respondent Bank along with the title vide Sale Deed, dated 09.11.2011, which is registered as Document No.12208/2011 at Guduvancheri was mortgaged in favour of the Respondent Bank through a registered 'Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds' registered as Document No.4701 on 2015 at SRO Guduvancheri on 08.04.2015 as security by the Borrower for availing the credit facilities.

¶32

It is submitted that availing of the credit facilities, the Applicant did not maintain financial discipline, and was irregular in the repayment of the loans due and payable to the Respondent Bank. Therefore, the loan account of the Applicant was classified as NPA on 12.05.2021.

¶33

After the classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued U/s.13(2) Demand Notice dated 22.02.2022, to the Applicant and the coborrower, namely, S. Devi, demanding to pay the outstanding sum of Rs.37,74,939.51 within sixty days from the date of the notice, together with further interest with effect from 10.02.2022 to the Respondent Bank. Even after the receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice, the Applicant nor the co-borrower paid the amounts regularly to regularize the account, nor any reply to such 'Demand Notice' under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act.

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

It is further submitted that the Applicant was not forthcoming with the payments, the Respondent Bank has proceeded further and issued U/s.13(4) Possession Notice dated 21.09.2022, to the Applicant and the coborrower, namely, S. Devi to pay the outstanding amounts as on date. Further, the possession notice is published in two newspapers on in English “The New Indian Express” and another one Tamil “Dhinamani” both dated 24.09.2022.

¶38

In spite of the Demand Notice and Possession Notice being served to the Applicant and the co-borrower, namely, S. Devi, no steps were taken for regularizing the NPA account. Hence, the Respondent Bank approached the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, by filing an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, to take physical possession of the property.

¶39

It is submitted that the Section 14 Application in Crl.M.Р. No.5129 of 2023 before the Hon'ble CJM, Chengalpet, allowed vide Order, dated 22.03.2024 granting the assistance to the Respondent Bank to take physical possession of the Schedule mentioned property.

¶40

In spite of the various irregularities committed on the part of the Applicant, the Applicant has now approached this Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the Order, dated 22.03.2024, passed by the Hon'ble CJM, Chengalept without any legal basis, and has no grounds to stand, the present Application ought to be dismissed in limine, as the Application is devoid of reasoning and baseless grounds for seeking the relief and the

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

same is filed in order to delay the recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank.

¶45

The Applicant has filed the Section 17 Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal challenged the Order passed by the Hon'ble CJM alone and not the Demand Notice nor the Possession Notice issued by the Respondent Bank, therefore, the Applicant has implied waived its right to challenge, and is estopped to challenge the same.

¶46

The respondent bank in para-wise reply have reiterated the objections to the SA to the Facts of the Case and prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶47

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of

¶48

the case

¶49

It is manifest from the records that the applicant is the borrower availed mortgage loan of Rs.49,90,000/- vide sanction letter dated 20.02.2015. To secure the credit facilities availed, the applicant property with title vide Sale Deed, dated 09.11.2011, mortgaged in favour of the Respondent Bank through a registered 'Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds' vide Document No.4701 on 2015 at SRO Guduvancheri on 08.04.2015.

¶50

In fact the applicant 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 applicant was classified as NPA on 12.05.2021 in accordance with RBI guidelines.

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued S.13(2) Demand Notice dated 22.02.2022, where the notice clearly describes the types of loan availed, the nature of facility and the documents executed by the borrowers. Further the description of the properties is clearly mentioned in the S.13(2) demand notice.

¶55

The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice is sent by RPAD which the applicant and the Co-borrower have received the Demand Notice as per the Acknowledgement card produced at Pg.16-19 of counter. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice as the borrower and the guarantor did not liquated the liability within 60 days nor raised any objections to the demand made, hence the respondent bank has proceeded further under the Act.

¶56

The respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 21.09.2022 sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgment, which the applicant and the Co-borrower have received the Possession Notice as per the tracking consignment produced at Pg.23 and 24. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 24.09.2022 and the Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.25 and 26 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶57

It is contended that the bank has not mentioned the outstanding amount due as on date of application as required under Sec.14 and has not considered the payment of Rs.8 lakhs made by the applicant after the

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

issuance of S.13[2] notice and the correct outstanding amount is not mentioned.

¶62

It is pertinent to note that the applicant has not liquated the entire liability has demanded in the Sec.13(2) demand notice within the period of 60 days. Hence, the contention that the applicant has made a payment of Rs.8 lakhs, after the receipt of the Sec.13(2) is not considered in the Sec.14 application cannot sustain. It is also apt to mention that the Sec.14 application is filed by the secured creditor seeking assistance to take the physical possession of the property under the Act.

¶63

The Sec.14 application filed by the secured creditor is to ascertain the measures taken by the bank or in accordance with the Act. Hence, the Sec.14 application filed narrating the borrowing of the credit facilities, mortgage of the property and classification of the account as NPA and the demand notice issued, subsequent to classification of the account as NPA.

¶64

Further, it is settled position that the secured creditor can approach the magistrate the under Sec.14 even before issuance of Sec.13(4) notice and even after the sale is held. It is ministerial act which does not involved any adjudication but only the application to ascertain the measures taken by the respondent bank. Further, the applicant has taken technical issue that the total outstanding is not mentioned as on date of Sec.14 application, this Tribunal in places reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L & T Housing Finance Limited – Vs. – Trishul Developers and Another has held that “trivial procedural lapse not a ground to nullify SARFAESI

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

proceedings initiated by the secured creditor, if no substantial prejudice was caused to the borrower”. As the applicant has failed to establish any prejudiced caused in not mentioning the total outstanding due in Sec.14 application.

¶69

It is an admitted fact that applicant has not challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 21.09.2022 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.

¶70

As the applicants failed to repay the entire outstanding amount the bank has proceeded and approached the CJM, Chengalpat 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 22.03.2024.

¶71

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 M/s. S. Jeyakumar, as the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property, take inventories if necessary and thereafter take possession of the petition mentioned property and hand over the same to the petitioner/bank.

¶72

Thus it is evident that the Ld. Magistrate on examination of the pleadings in the S.14 application which is supported by the documents,

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

have passed an order dated 22.03.2024 directing the Advocate Commissioner to take the possession of the property. Though the applicant have filed the present SA impugning the Sec.14 order dated 22.03.2024 passed by Ld. CJM, Chengalpet has not pointed out any illegality in the measures taken by the respondent herein.

¶77

On the other hand, though the statutory notices, the Demand Notice dated 22.02.2022 and Possession Notice dated 21.09.2022 are issued to the applicant in accordance to law, applicant 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.

¶78

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.

¶79

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 dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

“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”.

¶84

The Supreme Court in the judgment of Authorized Officer, Indian Bank v D Visalakshi and other, has held that a Chief Judicial Magistrate 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 22.03.2024 in C.M.P. No.5129/2023 passed by Ld. CJM, Chengalpet is a valid Order.

¶85

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.

¶86

34. T hus, the Sec.14 order passed by the Ld. Section 14 order dated 22.03.2024 in C.M.P. No.5129/2023 passed by CJM, Chengalpet is after due consideration of the application, affidavit in support of compliance of

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

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].

¶91

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

¶92

account as NPA.

¶93

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 22.02.2022 and S.13[4] Possession Notice dated 21.09.2022 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶94

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.

¶95

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

¶96

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 20^th day of March, 2026)

¶97

ANNEXURES

¶98

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶99

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Demand Notice dated 22.02.2022.	A-1

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

Order passed by the Chief Metropolitan A-2 Magistrate in C.M.P.No.5129 of 2023 dated 22.03.2024.

¶104

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶105

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Demand Notice issued to the Borrowers along with Postal Receipts and Acknowledgements Cards dated 22.02.2022.	R-1
2.	Possession Notice issued to the Borrowers along with Postal Receipts and Tracking Reports dated 21.09.2022.	R-2
3.	Affixture of Possession Notice by Authorized Officer dated 21.09.2022.	R-3
4.	Publication of Possession Notice in English and Tamil Newspaper dated 24.09.2022.	R-4
5.	Authorisation Letter and Power of Attorney of the Authorised Signatory of the respondent bank.	R-5

¶106

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶107

All that piece and parcel of land bearing Plot No.18, Door No.5, "Jesubatham Nagar" (Planning Permit No.294/2012-2013 & Building Permit No.705/2012) Layout of house sites situated in Kupuswamy Pillai Street, Guduvancherry Village, Chengalpattu District, comprised in Old Survey No.121/A1B Part, Old Patta No.743, New Patta No. 2145 as per New Survey No.121/A12B with an extent of 2710 Sq.ft out of 4800 Sq.ft and bounded as follows.

¶108

On the North By : Gopinath's Property and Kupuswamy Pillai Street; On the South By : House in Plot No.24;

¶109

On the East By : House in Plot No.17 & Gopinath's Property;

¶110

On the West By : Bathra Residency in Plot No.19;

¶111

Admeasuring:-

¶112

North to South on the Eastern Side : 55 Feet + 45 Feet;

¶113

North to South on the Western Side : 100 Feet;

¶114

East to West on the Southern Side : 10 Feet +38 Feet &

¶115

East to West on the Northern Side : 48 Feet;

SA No.198/2024

20.03.2026

In all measuring an total extent of 2710 Sq.ft., or 251.765 Sq.mts of vacant house land together with structure and building thereon existing and future and situated within the Registration District of Chennai South and Sub Registration District of Guduvancherry

¶120

Sd/- PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

A J Satheshkumar v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A J Satheshkumar v. Idbi Bank

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Subra System

Punjab National Bank versus Spire Works Rep By R Sekar

Rizwan versus Dcb Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Prathapsingh

Idbi Bank versus Mohamed Mustafa

City Union Bank Limited versus Jothi Impex and others