Allowed

P Sivaramakrishnan v. Union Bank of India

DRT13 Mar 2026SA/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank failed to file a counter affidavit despite multiple opportunities over two years. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Section 13(4) Possession Notice and directed the return of the application fee.

What did the court decide?

SA allowed; Section 13(4) Possession Notice set aside; application fee directed to be paid to loan account; pending IAs closed.

P Sivaramakrishnan versus Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

SA No.08/2024

13.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 08 of 2024

¶8

P. Sivaramakrishnan, S/o. Late Mr.Pazhanivel, LIG, 672, 9th Cross Street, Housing Board, Kurumbapet, Pondicherry-605 009.

¶9

…Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

UNION BANK OF INDIA Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Pondicherry AB, 104/105 Easwaran Kovil Street, Pondicherry-605 001.

¶12

…Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. Senthil Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Mr. R. Gowthama Narayanan

¶14

ORDER ON SA No. 08 /2024

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section [1] of Section 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].

¶16

Applicant is the borrower who has filed the present SA challenging Possession Notice dated 09.11.2023 and the present SA is filed on

SA No.08/2024

13.03.2026

16.11.2023. Applicant has taken the notice as directed by the Tribunal on the respondent bank and the respondent bank has filed their Vakalat on 15.07.2024. However, it is seen that in spite of sufficient opportunity the bank has not filed a counter along with the typed set in support of the measures taken.

¶21

It is seen from the proceedings that opportunity is given to the bank to file the counter from 15.07.2024, 06.09.2024, 12.11.2024, 13.01.2025, 17.04.2025, 04.09.2025, 12.12.2025, 23.02.2026 and 13.03.2026 (even today), counter is not filed even as on today. The officer of the bank is present and Advocate Mr. R. Gowtham Narayanan has filed vakalat on 15.07.2024 and Advocate Mr. S. Parthasarathy undertakes to file change of vakalat.

¶22

It is seen from the records that the bank has come on record on 15.07.2024 and in spite of 2 years have not filed the counter as on today (13.03.2026). Counsel for the bank submits that the bank has already issued the fresh Section 13(4) notice which the applicant is not aware of. Applicant has challenged the Section 13(4) notice and had obtained an Interim order which is duly complied.

¶23

The Tribunal under Section 17(1) is to adjudicate the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act and the Tribunal under Section 17[5] of the ACT is duty bound to dispose of the SA as expeditiously as possible within 60 days from the date of the application

SA No.08/2024

13.03.2026

and total period of pendency of the application shall not exceed 04 months from the date of the application.

¶28

As the respondent bank has not come forward to counter all the allegations / averments in respect of the measures taken by the respondent bank under the Act, the present SA is only to be allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, SA stands allowed, as bank has not countered the averments of applicant in the SA. Respondent bank is hereby directed to pay the application fee paid by the applicant at the time of filing the SA to the loan account before proceeding further under the measures. Accordingly, Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 09.11.2023 is hereby set aside. All the pending IA’s stands closed. Interim order granted, if any stands vacated.

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to Steno (Arti), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 13^th day of March, 2026)

P Sivaramakrishnan v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Sivaramakrishnan v. Union 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

Rajesh Elanchezian versus Punjab National Bank

Jayamaran versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Sunil Singh versus Union Bank of India

Karur Vysya Bank versus Zulaikha Motors PvtLtd

Bank of India versus M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi

Jj Fuels versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.