Allowed

c Nayarayanamma v. Canara Bank

DRT24 Mar 2026SA/207/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order grants a stay on an auction sale scheduled for 24.03.2026 fixed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Applicant, a legal heir of the deceased borrower, challenged the issuance of the Sale Notice to a dead person despite the bank's knowledge of the death.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 635/2026 for stay is allowed; the auction Sale notice dated 04.03.2026 is stayed.

c Nayarayanamma versus Canara Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

SA No.207/2026

24.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SA No. 207 of 2026

¶8

C.Narayanamma Wife of C.Venkataraju No.9/1, New No.19, Mylai Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶9

…Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank ARM Branch Hyderabad Circle Office Buildings, MCH No.10-3-163, & 10-3-163A, Plot No.85, Survey No.625, Besides Railnilayam, S.D Road – 500026 …Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A.Sam Arul Prasath

¶14

ORDER ON IA 635/2026

¶15

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].

SA No.207/2026

24.03.2026

The applicant has challenged the Sale notice dated 04.03.2026 fixing the sale on 24.03.2026 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale notice is Rs.10,24,93,327.25p/-

¶20

The applicant is the wife of the deceased director Mr. C. Venkataraju who was the managing director of the M/s.Gurucare Technologies Pvt Ltd. 4. M/s.Gurucare Technologies Pvt Ltd is the borrower who had availed credit facilities from the respondent bank which are secured by mortgage of the property of the applicant.

¶21

The applicant has challenged the sale notice dated 04.03.2026 fixing the date of e-auctioning the property on 24.03.2026 between 11 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.

¶22

It is the specific case of the applicant that the applicant had earlier challenged the sale notice dated 03.08.2022 in SA No.471 of 2022 before DRT-II and due to bifurcation of jurisdiction the case was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TSA No.126/2023 and has produced the Order dated 23.06.2023 where the SA came to be allowed directing the applicant to furnish legal heirship along with the address and particulars of legal heirs on or before 15.07.2023.

¶23

It is seen that the bank has endorsed in the SA book that the sale notice is issued against the dead person. Recording the same SA came to be allowed setting aside the sale notice dated 03.08.2022.

¶24

The applicant has intimated the details of legal heirs and have produced legal heirship at Page No.12 and the letter sent along is sent by RPAD and the postal receipt is produced at Page No.13 which is dated 08.07.2023.

¶25

The death certificate produced at Page No.12 reflects that Mr. C. Venkataraju is deceased on 08.03.2020 and Mrs. C. Narayanamma is the

SA No.207/2026

24.03.2026

wife, Mr. C. Ramesh Babu is the son, Mrs. Geetha Raju Nandimandalam is the daughter and Kokila Raju N is the other daughter.

¶30

Though the applicant as legal heirs have sent the legal heirship certificate along with the letter as per the direction of this Tribunal in TSA No.126 of 2023, it is seen from the sale notice that the respondent have issued the sale notice to Mr. C. Venkataraju who is deceased which cannot sustain.

¶31

Further, the respondent bank present along with the Officer had no answer to the sale notice issued to dead person Late Mr.C. Venkataraju inspite of communication of the same to the bank.

¶32

Counsel for the bank did not have any answer on the other hand submitted that the notice is issued by RPM Hyderabad branch and the property is in Chennai. Further, it is contended by the Counsel appearing for the respondent that they have filed caveat, however, caveat is filed by the respondent bank is after the filing of the SA.

¶33

Admittedly the sale notice is issued to dead person Late Mr.C Venkataraju who is deceased as per the death certificate in spite of knowledge of death. Hence, the IA No. 635/2026 for stay the auction sale stands allowed, and the auction Sale notice dated 04.03.2026 scheduling the sale on 24.03.2026 is hereby stayed.

¶34

Sd/

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to Steno (Arti), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 24^th day of March, 2026

c Nayarayanamma v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

c Nayarayanamma v. Canara Bank

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

Union Bank of India versus Darshan Plastics

Icici Bank Limited versus Manisha Ajay Sood

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sham Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Rajinder Pal Singh

Ms Rimpa and Simpa Enterprise And Ors. versus Indian Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Tarsem Kumar