Dismissed

R Narayanan v. Union Bank of India

DRT29 Apr 2026SA/219/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, applicants (guarantors) challenged the sale of mortgaged properties by the borrower and sought validation of the sale proceedings, arguing irregularities in notice and valuation. The Tribunal found no infirmities in the sale procedures and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The present Securitization Application is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

R Narayanan versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 219 of 2025

¶8

Mr. R.Narayanan, S/o. Mr. Rangasamy Pillai, No.6, Officers Colony, 4th Main Road, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088.

¶9

M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises, Rep. by its Sole Proprietor Mr.N.Rathan, S/o. R. Narayanan, No.6, Officers Colony, 4th Main Road, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088. …Applicants

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, NO.9, Elcanso Complex, Casa Major Road,

¶12

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. …Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, M. Samson Benny, T. Monicka. Counsel for respondent : M/s. A. Jaishankar

¶15

ORDER ON SA 219/2025

¶16

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 25.02.2025 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short

¶17

the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶18

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

The applicant has challenged the Sale held on 10.01.2025 pursuant to Sale Notice dated 20.12.2024 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.6,74,37,044.15/-

¶23

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶24

The applicant is the guarantor to the loan availed by the M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises, represented by its sole proprietor Mr. N. Rathan. The loan is also guaranteed by Mr. N.Dhanasekar alias N. Sekaran. The applicant has challenged the sale held on 10.01.2025 pursuant to the sale notice dated 20.12.2024 in respect of Item No.1 property ie., land and building bearing Door No.9A, Parthasarathy Nagar, 11^th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai -600 088, Land measuring to extent of 5892 sq.ft., Comprised in Survey Nos.208/15 and 208/16, T.S.No.77/1, 78, Adambakkam Village. Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District presently within the Corporation of Chennai.

¶25

3.1 The 2^nd applicant is a proprietary firm represented by its proprietor Mr. N. Rathan who is son of the 1^st applicant Mr. R. Narayanan. Mr. R. Narayanan, along with another son Mr. Sekaran has offered their ancestral properties as security towards the credit facility availed by the 2^nd applicant herein.

¶26

3.2 It is the case of the applicants, the 2^nd applicant approached the bank in August 2013 and availed loan facility of Rs.5 crores for running a business, and the bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,90,00,000/- vide

¶27

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

letter dated 23.10.2013 which was deposited into the OD account of the 2^nd applicant on 31.10.2013.

¶32

3.3. In Dec.2015, the 2^nd applicant again approached the bank seeking

¶33

for enhancement of the loan amount from Rs.1,90,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,00,000/- which was sanctioned by the respondent bank by depositing a sum of Rs.3,10,00,000/- in the OD account of the 2^nd applicant on 20.01.2016. The applicant as well as the applicant’s second son Mr. Sekeran have mortgaged 2 items of the property as security towards the credit facilities.

¶34

3.4 It is contented that the 2^nd applicant has made consistence repayments from 2013 to 2019 which are as follows.

¶35

SI.No.	Year	Interest Paid Per Year
1.	2013	Rs.1,63,474/-
2.	2014	Rs.19,12,954/-
3.	2015	Rs.21,13,494/-
4.	2016	Rs.47,39,674/-
5.	2017	Rs.93,47,543/-
6.	2018	Rs.61,47,141/-
7.	2019	Rs.15,54,736
Total	Interest Paid=	Rs.2,59,79,016/-

¶36

3.5 However, the respondent have declared the loan account of the 2^nd applicant as NPA on 30.06.2019 and issued the Sec.13(2) demand notice on 06.07.2019, subsequently, the 1^st applicant’s elder son, Mr. N. Rathan,

¶37

sole proprietor of the 2^nd applicant approached the respondent bank in Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

September 2022 and offered to settle the account and sought for a one time settlement and paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as the initial payment towards the One Time Settlement – OSDL scheme and the same was deposited in a no-lien account. The bank has agreed to sanctioned the OTS amount of Rs.4,70,00,000/- under OSDL scheme vide letter dated 23.03.2023.

¶42

3.6 Since, there was a delay in payment as per the OTS Proposal, the respondent bank issued the sale notice dated 15.07.2023 under Rule 8 of SIE Rules, fixing the sale in respect of the item 2 property on 10.08.2023 without the knowledge of the applicants for a sale consideration of Rs.1,97,00,000/- which is grossly undervalued as the current market value of the item 2 property is more than Rs.4,50,00,000/-.

¶43

3.7 The respondent bank without giving 30 days’ notice issued the sale notice and have conducted the sale of the item 2 property within 26 days from the issuance of sale notice. The applicant has paid Rs.50 Lakhs by way of cheque bearing No.332658 under the OTS-OSDL scheme which was deposited in a no-lien account under the OTS-OSDL scheme.

¶44

3.8 However, the applicant was shocked to know about the sale in respect of item No.2 property is on 10.08.2023 when he visited the properties on 27.08.2023 when an advocate commissioner intended to take the physical possession of the properties. Hence, the applicant filed an application in SA.509.2023 seeking to set aside the sale conducted on 10.08.2023 and to set aside the sale notice dated 15.07.2023 and had also filed an

¶45

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

IA.1457/2023 to stay further proceedings and the Tribunal vide order dated 05.10.2023 was pleased to grant an interim order of stay.

¶50

3.9 The applicant submitted a letter dated 02.02.2024, along with a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.2 crores dated 01.02.2024, bearing DD No. 035554, and a cheque for a sum of Rs.1 crore to the respondent which is received by respondent.

¶51

3.10 Then the respondent bank has issued the sale notice dated 22.11.2024 in respect of item no.1 property for a reserve price of Rs.4,10,00,000/- and the sale was scheduled on 13.12.2024 without giving 30 days’ time has issued for 21 days scheduling to be sold on 13.12.2024, however, the sale did not take place for want of bidders.

¶52

3.11 Subsequently, the bank has issued the sale notice dated 20.12.2024 fixing the reserve price of Rs.3,70,00,000/- scheduling the property to be sold on 10.01.2025, has reduced the reserve price from Rs.4,10,00,000/to Rs.3,70,00,000/- without any reason for reduction of the reserve price, further the item No.1 property is located at the heart of the city and the current market value is more than Rs.7 crores.

¶53

3.12 The applicant was not informed about the name of the auction purchaser and the price for which the item No.1 property was sold. Aggrieved by the action of respondent bank in bringing the property of item no.1 property to sale in violation the present SA has filed for setting aside the sale held. On these grounds the applicant prays to set aside the sale notice dated 20.12.2024.

¶54

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

Objections of the respondent bank

¶59

The respondent bank has filed counter along with supporting documents, inter alia contending that the applicant, being the proprietor of M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises, had approached the respondent bank for availing an overdraft facility for business purposes and bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.5 crores vide sanction intimation letter dated 16.12.2015. Thereafter, the 2nd applicant requested an overdraft facility on 29.01.2016 and executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 29.01.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/-, along with a Take Delivery Letter of the same date. The 1st applicant and his son, Mr. Sekaran alias Dhanasekar, executed a Guarantee Agreement dated 29.01.2016 guaranteeing due repayment of the loan facility availed by the borrower.

¶60

4.1 The 1^st applicant and his son Mr. Sekaran alias applicant Dhanasekar also deposited the title deeds of their properties, land an extent of 5892 Sq.ft, with building an extent of 5000 Sq.ft, in S.Nos.208/15 and 208/16, T.S.No.77/1, bearing Door No.9А, Parthasarathy Nagar, 11th Street, Adamabakkam Chennai-88 belonging to the first Applicant by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 06.07.2011 Doc No.2033 of 2011 and Memorandum of agreement for deposit of title for extension of emg deeds dated 02.02.2016 (Doc No.476 of 2016) executed by the first applicant and Mr. Sekaran in favour of the Respondent Bank as security for the due repayment of the credit facility.

¶61

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

4.2 As the operation of the accounts were not satisfactory and over dues the borrower did not regularize the account resulting in classification of the account as NPA on 30.06.2019 as per the RBI guideless. The respondent bank had issued a demand notice dated 06.07.2019 which was duly served to the applicants as well as to the borrower and guarantors.

¶66

4.3 The applicants neither settled the dues nor submitted any reply to the demand notice; consequently, the respondent bank issued the possession notice under Section 13(4) only after the expiry of 60 days from the date of the demand notice. The respondent bank had affixed the possession notice on 18.09.2019, published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 24.09.2019. The respondent bank has followed all the procedures as prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

¶67

4.4 In fact the applicant had filed SA.436 of 2019 has challenged the possession notice dated 18.09.2019 before the DRT-II which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2020 which is not challenged by the applicant and the borrower.

¶68

4.5 Thereafter, the respondent bank had issued the sale notice dated 13.11.2019 fixing the sale on 23.12.2019, after obtaining the valuation report from the approved valuer. The sale notice was duly served to the applicant and borrower on 20.11.2019, the respondent had given clear 30 days sale notice as per Rule 8(6) of the Act. The sale notice has also affixed on 17.11.2019, and sale notice has been duly published in two

¶69

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” Chennai edition both dated 20.11.2019. The Authorized Officer has followed all the mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rule. However, the sale has not taken place for want of bidders.

¶74

4.6 Thereafter, the respondent had issued several sale notices dated 22.06.2020, 17.07.2020, 11-03-2022, 01-04-2022, 30-04-2022, 24-052022, 07.01.2023 etc. however, none of the sale notices were successful due to lack of bidders. The respondent bank also filed Sec.14 application on 23.02.2022 for taking physical possession of the property before the CJM, Chengalpat in Crl.M.P.No.4188/2022, the Hon’ble CJM had passed an Order dated 07.06.2022 and appointed the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured assets. Subsequently, warrant was also issued to the Advocate Commissioner and the same has been communicated to the applicant and borrower by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶75

4.7 The respondent had issued fresh Sale Notice dated 15.07.2023 fixing E-Auction Sale on 10.08.2023. The sale notice was duly served to the applicants, affixed on 18.07.2023, published in two newspapers one in English "The New Indian Express" and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” in Chennai Edition both dated 23-07-2023. The reserve price was fixed in compliance with Rule 8(5), based on two valuation reports obtained from approved valuers on 31.10.2022. The Authorized Officer has followed all mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules.

¶76

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

4.8 The respondent conducted the e-auction on 10.08.2023 and one Mr. Sakthivel had quoted bid amount of Rs.1,97,50,000/- as against reserved price for Rs.1,95,50,000/- in respect of property situated at Plot No.26, No.5th Main Road, Officer Colony, Adambakkam, Chennai-88, belongs to Mr. Sekaran. Mr. Sakthival is declared as Successful bidder by the respondent, the auction purchaser had remitted 25% bid amount on 11.08.2023, the respondent had confirmed the sale in favour of the auction purchaser vide Letter dated 11.08.2023.

¶81

4.9 Subsequently, the auction purchaser had remitted balance 75 % of sale amount of Rs.1,48,12,500/- on 23.08.2023. The respondent had issued Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser on 25.08.2023. There was no bidder in respect of another property at Door No.9A, Parthasarathy Nagar, 11th Street, Adamabakkam Chennai-88 belongs to first applicant.

¶82

4.10 The 1^st applicant had challenged the sale held on 10.08.2023 pursuant to the sale notice dated 15.07.2023 in SA.509 of 2023 before this Hon’ble Tribunal and had directed the respondent to maintain Status Quo with regards to dispossession of the Plot No.26, No.5th Main Road, Officer Colony, Adambakkam, Chennai-88. However, there was no stay against the another mortgage property at Door No.9A, Parthasarathy Nagar, 11th Street, Adamabakkam Chennai-88 belongs to first applicant.

¶83

4.11 Subsequently, after sale of plot No.26, No.5^th Main Road, Officer Colony Adambakkam Chennai, the applicant had given a letter dated

¶84

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

25.08.2023 to the respondent for OTS proposal with cheque issued by the

¶89

third party namely M/s. Victory construction.

¶90

4.12 On perusal of the proposal, the respondent Bank had raised queries vide their mail dated 08-09-2023 to clarify on the following points:

¶91

An undertaking letter to handover peaceful physical possession of

¶92

the item no. 2 of the schedule property which was sold,

¶93

Amount of OTS and repayment period to be clarified

¶94

Source of repayment.

¶95

As per the point No.1 it is implied that Item No.2 of the schedule property was sold and the said proposal will be considered only for remaining mortgage property situated at Door No.9A, Parthasarathy Nagar, 11th Street, Adamabakkam Chennai-88 alone. A reminder mail was also sent on 21- 09-2023. On non-receipt of clarification, the branch has sent a communication on 25-09-2023 saying that the OTS may be cancelled due to non-receipt of the aforementioned clarifications.

¶96

4.13 However, the applicant did not issue any communication in this regard, therefore the respondent cancelled the OTS proposal. Subsequently, a third party, M/s. Victory Construction, Mr. Stanley Raajan, by letter dated 09.06.2025, requested the respondent to return the cheque amount issued along with the OTS letter dated 25.08.2023 submitted by the applicants. The respondent replied to the said request vide letter dated 13.06.2025.

¶97

4.14 The respondent had issued fresh Sale Notice dated 20.12.2024 fixing

¶98

the E-Auction Sale on 10.01.2025 duly served to the applicants. The sale

¶99

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

notice has also affixed on 20.12.2024 and published in two newspapers one in English "The New Indian Express" and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” in Chennai Edition both dated 25.12.2024. The reserve price was fixed in compliance with Rule 8(5), based on valuation reports dated 20.11.2024 by V. Murugandas and 21.11.2024 by Harry Shankar. The Authorized Officer has followed all the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules.

¶104

4.15 The Respondent bank denies all the averments made in the present SA and as the respondent have followed all the procedures in accordance with act, prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶105

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

¶106

The applicant Mr. R. Narayanan is the guarantor to the loan facilities availed by M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises a proprietary concern represented by

¶107

its proprietor Mr. N. Rathinam who is the son of 1^st applicant Mr. R. Narayanan. It is seen from the Sale notice dated 20.12.2024 that M/s. Vinayaga Enterprises had availed credit facilities to which the applicant Mr. R. Narayanan has stood as guarantor and his son Mr. N. Dhanasekaran alias Sekaran has also stood as guarantor and both are mortgagors to the loan.

¶108

5.1 Thus, it is seen that the borrower M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises represented by its proprietor Mr. N. Rathnam and applicant Mr. R. Narayanan, Mr. Dhanasekaran are all family members who have all stood

¶109

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

as guarantors to the credit facilities availed by M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises which is not disputed by them. Though, the applicant himself has admitted that his youngest son Mr. Dhanasekaran stood as guarantor and has also mortgaged the property and he is not made as a party to the present SA and on this ground the SA has to be dismissed for non-joinders of necessary parties.

¶114

5.2 The 1^st applicant being the guarantor and 2^nd applicant being the borrower have not disputed the availing of the credit facilities of Rs.1.90 crores and the enhanced amount to Rs.5.00 crores. It is an admitted fact that the borrower defaulted in the repayment of the loan resulting in classification of account as NPA on 30.06.2019 which was followed by the issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 06.07.2019.

¶115

5.3 Even after the receipt of Section 13(2) Demand Notice, the borrower and guarantor failed to discharge their entire liabilities. Hence, respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 18.09.2019 by following all the procedures. The Possession notice was affixed on the property and published in two Newspapers as per Rule 8 of the SIE Rules. Further the applicants have challenged the Possession Notice dated 18.09.2019 in SA No.436 of 2019 before Hon’ble DRT II Chennai which was subsequently dismissed on 30.11.2020 and the same has attained finality as the borrower and guarantor have not challenged the Order dated 30.11.2020.

¶116

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

5.4 The respondent bank being a secured creditor with an intention to recover the outstanding liability has issued the Sale notice dated 13.11.2019 after obtaining valuation report from an approved valuer giving a clear 30 days’ notice as per Rule 8(6). The sale notice was published in two Newspapers, affixed on the property, however, the sale did not taken place for want of bidders. It is seen from the records that the respondent bank has issued several sale notices dated 22.06.2020, 17.07.2020, 11.03.2022, 01.04.2022, 30.04.2022, 24.05.2022, 07.01.2023 which did not see fruition for want of bidders.

¶121

5.5 The first applicant’s elder son being the proprietor of M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises approached the respondent bank offered to settle the liability under OTS and also made a payment of Rs.4,50,000/- under OSDL scheme. The respondent bank has agreed for OTS of Rs.4,70,00,000/- vide letter dated 23.03.2023.

¶122

5.6 Further it is an admitted fact that the applicants could not comply with the OTS terms, hence the respondent bank has filed Section 14 application on 23.02.2022 which came to be allowed on 07.06.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.4188/2022 by CJM, Chengalpet. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take the physical possession of the property, the Advocate Commissioner has also communicated to the applicants herein about the Section 14 order, however the same is not challenged as on date.

¶123

5.7 As the earlier Sale notices did not materialize, the respondent bank

¶124

has issued the Sale Notice dated 15.07.2023 fixing the sale to be held on

¶125

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

10.08.2023 which is duly served on the applicants and the same is not disputed. The respondent bank has successfully conducted the E auction on 10.08.2023 and Mr. Sakthivel is declared as successful bidder for Rs.1,97,50,000/- for Reserve price of Rs.1,95,50,000/- in respect of the property situated at Plot No.26, No.5 Main Road, Officer Colony, Adambakkam, Chennai – 88 which belongs to Mr. Sekaran.

¶130

5.8 The auction purchaser has paid 25% of the bid amount on 11.08.2023 and the respondent bank has issued Sale confirmation to the auction purchaser vide letter dated 11.08.2023. On remittance of the entire 75% of the sale amount of Rs.1,48,12,500/- on 23.08.2023 the Sale certificate was issued favoring the Auction purchaser on 25.08.2023.

¶131

5.9 The first contention raised in challenging the sale notice is that respondent bank has failed to give 30 days’ clear notice to the borrower and guarantors. However, the present Sale notice is a subsequent sale notice which does not require 30 days’ notice as per Rule 9(1) of SIE Rules where 15 days clear notice is required, hence the respondent bank has issued Sale notice dated 20.12.2024 and Sale held on 10.01.2025 with clear 15 days’ notice issued by the respondent bank.

¶132

5.10 Further the applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar & Ors

¶133

[(2014) 5 SCC 610] – which is on the sale of secured asset wherein it was held that the issuance of the fresh sale proclamation is to be followed, however in the instant matter the Sale notice is duly received by the

¶134

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

Borrower and Guarantors, though in the Sale notice dated 20.12.2024, 15 days’ notice is clearly mentioned. Hence, the contention of the applicant that 30 days’ notice is not given before conducting the sale fails.

¶139

5.11 Secondly, it is contended that there is no proper valuation obtained from the approved valuer. In fact, the respondent bank has obtained two valuation reports dated 20.11.2024, 21.11.2024 which are produced at page No.42-89 fixing the Reserve price at Rs.3,70,00,000/-. The relevant portions of the valuation reports is extracted hereunder:

¶140

1^st Valuation report dated 20.11.2024:

¶141

Fair Market Value	100%	Rs.4,71,40,000/-
Realizable Value assessed @	85%	Rs.4,00,65,600/-
Forced Sale value assessed @	75%	Rs.3,53,55,000/-

¶142

2^nd Valuation report dated 21.11.2024:

¶143

Fair Market Valuer		Rs.4.57 crores
Realizable Value	80%	Rs.3.65 crores
assessed @
Forced Sale Value	75%	Rs.3.42 crores
assessed @

¶144

5.12 Therefore, the respondent bank has fixed the reserve price of

¶145

Rs.3,70,00,000/- as per the valuation reports dated 20.11.2024 and

¶146

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

21.11.2024 considering the repeated sale notice issued and on failure of sale for want of bidders. The further contention that further the applicant has contended that there is a reduction of reserve price from the earlier Sale notice i.e., Rs.4.10 crores reduced to Rs.3.70 crores is evidently due to the fact that the secured creditor was unable to fetch the bidders for the reserve price fixed and though the applicants have taken a contention that the market value is more than Rs.7.00 crores has not produced any valuation report to support the claim of the applicant. In absence of any supporting documents that the property undervalued same cannot sustain and the same fails.

¶151

5.13 Yet another contention put forth the property is described wrongly in the Sale notice dated 20.12.2024. On verification of the description of the property in the MODT and the sale notice dated 02.02.2016, it is clear that the description of the property as detailed in Sale notice dated 20.12.2024 is the same as the description of the property as described in the MOTD dated 02.02.2016 and for appreciation of fact, same are extracted hereunder:

¶152

Boundaries of the property as per MODT Dated 02.02.2016:

¶153

North by: Rosary School

¶154

South by: R.V. Plot

¶155

East by: A.T. Venkarasamy Pillai’s land West by: Ramamurthy’s Land and Parthasarathy Street,

¶156

Boundaries of the property in Sale notice dated 20.12.2024: North by: Rosary School

¶157

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

South by: R.V. Plot

¶162

East by: A.T. Venkarasamy Pillai Land West by: Ramamurthy’s Land and Parthasarathy Street

¶163

5.14 Hence, from the above description of the property in both the documents is as per the MODT executed by the applicants dated 02.02.2016. Further it is also not the case of the applicant that the property cannot be identified as per the description in the sale notice. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that there is no proper description of the property fails.

¶164

5.15 The applicants were ready and willing to settle the amount of Rs.4,70,00,000/- had approached respondent bank multiple times and the respondent had offered OTS settlement vide OTS letter dated 23.03.2023 produced at Page No.2 of the SA, it is clearly mentioned that total dues is Rs.732.26 lakhs to which the respondent bank had agreed for a settlement of Rs.470 lakhs which the applicant have not complied with the Special OTS scheme as agreed by them. Though applicants have approached the bank with Demand Draft dated 01.02.2024 for Rs.2.00 crores vide letter dated 02.02.2024 towards the OTS amount of Rs.4.70 crores which is subsequent to sale of the property.

¶165

5.16 Further it is seen that the respondent bank has given time period up to 31.03.2023 and the applicants have approached the respondent bank vide letter dated 02.02.2024, hence it is evident that the applicants have approached the respondent bank with Demand Draft of Rs.2.00 crores after the expiry of Special OTS scheme i.e., 31.03.2023. On the other hand,

¶166

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

though the applicant had entered into the Special OTS scheme failed to comply with the Terms of OTS. Hence, the contention of the applicants that the respondent bank has failed to consider the several requests made by the applicants to settle the entire liability fails.

¶171

5.17 It is pertinent to note that the applicants are in receipt of the Sale notice dated 20.12.2024 and failed to challenge the same and allowed the auction to be held on 10.01.2025, hence the applicants have lost their right of redemption under Section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act which is extracted hereunder:

¶172

Section 13 (8):

¶173

Where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets

¶174

5.18 Further, the applicants have raised additional averments in the present SA by way of written arguments filed on 18.02.2026 which are not pleaded in the SA, nor the applicant had sought permission to raise additional grounds by way of an application. Hence, the averments raised in the written arguments which are not pleaded is not considered and the same stands rejected.

¶175

5.19 In the instant matter there is no dispute with regard to OTS settlement arrived and failure to liquidate the entire liability as per agreed

¶176

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

settlement. The applicant does not dispute the availing of the credit facilities, mortgage of the property and execution of the guarantee agreements and default in the repayment and the failure of the applicant in complying to the terms of OTS.

¶181

5.20 Therefore, the respondent bank has proceeded further in issuing the Sale notice dated 20.12.2024 which the applicant has failed to challenge and challenged only the Sale held on 10.01.2025 and the sale procedures. As there is no infirmity in the auction Sale or in the sale procedures applicants have failed to make out a case of any infirmities in the measures taken by the respondent bank.

¶182

5.21 On the other hand, the respondent bank has duly established the due compliance of the measures in issuing the statutory notices and Sale notice dated 20.12.2024 and sale held on 10.01.2025 and issuance of Sale certificate dated 03.03.2025 are held as valid measures. The challenge to sale held on 10.01.2025 and sale notices issued by the respondent bank does not require any interference from this Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons the present SA is only to be dismissed.

¶183

5.22 Resultantly the present SA 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/-

¶184

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

¶185

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 29^th day of April, 2026)

¶186

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶191

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Sanction Letter dated 23.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.1,90,00,000/-dated 23.10.2013.	A-1
2.	Sanction Letter dated 23.03.2023 for OTS amount of Rs.4,70,00,000/- under OSDL scheme dated 23.03.2023.	A-2
3.	Sale Notice dated 15.07.2023 in respect of the Item 2 property.	A-3
4.	Cheque dated 28.08.2023 bearing the cheque No.332658 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-.	A-4
5.	Application filed by the applicant in S.A.No.509.2023 dated 05.09.2023.	A-5
6.	Letter dated 23.09.2023 addressed to the respondent bank.	A-6
7.	Memo filed by the applicant in SA.509.2023 dated 04.10.2023.	A-7
8.	Order dated 05.10.2023 passed in I.A. No.1457 of 2023 filed by the applicant in SA.509.2023.	A-8
9.	Letter dated 02.11.2023 addressed to the respondent bank.	A-9
10.	Daily order dated 01.02.2024 in SA.509.2023.	A-10
11.	Letter dated 02.02.2024 addressed to the respondent bank.	A-11
12.	Sale Notice dated 22.11.2024 in respect of the item 1 property.	A-12
13.	Sale Notice dated 20.12.2024 in respect of the item 1 property.	A-13
14.	Notice for the caveator dated 31.01.2025(Respondent Bank).	A-14

¶192

INDEX TO THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE

¶193

APPLICANT

¶194

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	IA’s Filed in 509/2023 and 219/2025 dated 16.02.2025.	A-1
2.	WMP High Court Order dated 05.08.2025 for Borrower dated 16.02.2025.	A-2
3.	Similar Case Reference: DRT 3 Order Copy dated 16.02.2025.	A-3

¶195

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

4.	One Page Statement dated 16.02.2025.	A-4
5.	Proof of Property Value ffrom Online dated 16.02.2025.	A-5
6.	Property Item No.2 Valuation by Sivaprakasam & Associates dated 23.08.2013.	A-6
7.	Corporation Bank (now Union Bank) Document (Valuation mentioned for Item No.1 & Item No.2 Property) dated 23.08.2013.	A-7
8.	MODTD for 190 Lakhs dated 11.11.2013.	A-8
9.	Bank Valuation – Sappany Pillai for Item No.1 Property dated 16.08.2015.	A-9
10.	Bank Valuation – Vitech Consultancy of Item No.1 property before enhancement dated 19.01.2016.	A-10
11.	MODTD for 500 Lakhs dated 02.02.2016.	A-11
12.	Demand Notice (sent before recall notice) dated 06.07.2019.	A-12
13.	Possession Notice dated 18.09.2019.	A-13
14.	Recall Notice from Advocate Jaishankar (sent after Demand Notice) dated 29.08.2019.	A-14
15.	CJM Affidavit dated 22.02.2022	A-15
16.	CJM Petition dated 23.02.2022	A-16
17.	CJM Order dated 07.07.2022.	A-17
18.	Borrower paid 4.50 Lakhs initial payment in “OTS–OSDL Scheme”dated 09.09.2022.	A-18
19.	Valuation by Udhayakumar for Item No.1 Property submitted by bank in counter 509 dated 31.10.2022.	A-19
20.	Valuation by Udhayakumar for Item No.2 Property submitted by Bank in counter 509 dated 31.10.2022.	A-20
21.	Whatsapp message (Postal covers) from Borrower to AGM dated 17.12.2022.	A-21
22.	Borrower Letter to Bank for settling the loan and payment & work flow information dated 17.12.2022.	A-22
23.	Borrower Letter to bank for survey number 171/4 dated 17.12.2022.	A-23
24.	OTS Settlement Letter from Bank under OTS – OSDL Scheme for Rs.470.00 Lakhs dated 23.03.2023.	A-24
25.	Sale Notice dated 15.07.2023, (for auction held on 10.08.2023).	A-25
26.	Sale Notice dated 17.08.2023, fixing the auction dated 12.09.2023 dated 17.08.2023.	A-26
27.	Borrower paid 50 Lakhs in OTS- OSDL Scheme dated 25.08.2023.	A-27

¶200

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

28.	1^stSale Certificate issued to Mr. Sakthivel dated 25.08.2023.	A-28
29.	S.A.509/2023 (filed challenging the sale notice dated 15.07.2023 for item no.1 and item no.2 property) dated 30.08.2023.	A-29
30.	Guarantor Letter to Bank informing Survey number 171/4 dated 07.09.2023.	A-30
31.	Mails submitted in counter by Bank dated 08.09.2023.	A-31
32.	Letter by Borrower for making balance 4,15,50,000 in OTS – OSDL Scheme dated 23.09.2023.	A-32
33.	Memo filed by borrower ready to remit balance entire OTS amount dated 29.09.2023.	A-33
34.	First Intimation letter from bank about the sale of Item No.2 property dated 25.09.2023, received by borrower on 30.09.2023.	A-34
35.	Memo filed by borrower paying 70.00 lakhs (ready to clear cheque) and ready to remit balance OTS amount dated 04.10.2023.	A-35
36.	Order copy of status and Quo by PO for Item No.2 property dated 05.10.2023.	A-36
37.	509 counter dated 11.10.2023.	A-37
38.	Respondent bank letter to borrower for cancellation of OTS dated 21.10.2023.	A-38
39.	Applicant submitted 1 crore cheque (ready to clear cheque) and letter to settle balance Rs.3,15,50,000 in 60 days dated 02.11.2023.	A-39
40.	Respondent bank letter to borrower about OTS dated 06.11.2023.	A-40
41.	Demolition order of Item No.1 property dated 13.12.2023.	A-41
42.	Borrower submitted 2 Crore DD and 1 Crore Cheque (ready to clear cheque) with letter to settle balance 1,15,50,000 within 15 days dated 02.02.2024.	A-42
43.	Bank filed IA in 509 for “clarification of Stay” dated 05.10.2023 dated 06.11.2024.	A-43
44.	Valuation by V. Murugadas taken by bank for item No.1 submitted in counter 219 dated 20.11.2024.	A-44
45.	Valuation by Harry Shelters taken by bank for Item No.1 submitted in counter 219 dated 21.11.2024.	A-45
46.	Sale notice for Item No.1 property dated 12.11.2024 (after 14 months) fixing auction dated 13.12.2024 dated 22.11.2024.	A-46

¶205

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

47.	2^ndSale Certificate issued to Mr. Sakthivel for Item No.2 property dated 11.12.2024	A-47
48.	Sale Notice for Item No.1 property fixing the auction dated on 10.01.2025 received on 24.12.2024 dated 20.12.2024.	A-48
49.	Borrower request letter to bank for statement of accounts and bank gave 1 pages statement to borrower dated 20.01.2025.	A-49
50.	Sale Certificate issued to Rani Baskar for Item No.2 Property dated 03.03.2025.	A-50
51.	Item No.1 Property Registration without Sale Certificate dated 05.03.2025.	A-51
52.	Respondent Bank letter to sub registrar about T.A.527/2023 proceedings. Sale notice 4.1 Violation dated 05.03.2025.	A-52
53.	W.P. filed 303/2025 in High Court by Bank for Police Protection for Eviction dated 04.07.2025.	A-53
54.	S.A.219 Counter dated 09.07.2025.	A-54
55.	W.P. filed 27440/2025 in High Court by Borrower for stay dated 14.07.2025.	A-55
56.	All PO order copies of SA.509/2023, SA.219/2025 dated from 05.10.2023 to 07.01.2026 dated 18.07.2025.	A-56
57.	All PO order copies of SA.219/2025 dated from 18.07.2025 to 07.01.2026 dated 18.07.2025.	A-57
58.	Borrower Request Letter to Bank for statement	A-58
	of Accounts and Account Details dated 17.09.2025.
59.	Settlement Deed of Item No.1 property Devi to Narayanan dated 17.02.2025.	A-59
60.	EC dated 17.02.2025.	A-60
61.	Property Tax dated 17.02.2025.	A-61
62.	Electricity Bill dated 17.02.2025.	A-62
63.	Pata dated 17.02.2025.	A-63
64.	Online Patta dated 17.02.2025.	A-64
65.	Property Sketch dated 17.02.2025.	A-65
66.	Proof of copy served to bank dated 17.02.2025.	A-66
67.	Fee Receipt dated 17.02.2025.	A-67

¶210

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶211

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Final order in S.A.No.436 of 2019 passed by the Hon'ble DRT-II, Chennai against the possession Notice filed by the applicant and borrower dated 30.11.2021	R-1

¶212

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

2.	First Sale Notice issued by the respondent to the Applicant along with acknowledgement card and returned cover dated 13.11.2019	R-2
3.	Proof of Affixture of First Sale Notice dated 17.11.2019	R-3
4.	Paper publication of the Sale Notice issued in English daily namely Indian Express and in one issued in Tamil daily namely Dhinamani Chennai Edition dated 20-11-2019	R-4
5.	Sale Notice issued by the respondent to the Applicant and borrower along with acknowledgement cards dated 15.07.2023	R-5
6.	Sale Certificate issued in favour of Auction Purchaser dated 25.08.2023	R-6
7.	Valuation Report in respect of the schedule property dated 21.11.2024	R-7
8.	Valuation Report in respect of the schedule property dated 20.11.2024	R-8
9.	Sale Notice issued by the respondent to the Applicant and borrower along with acknowledgement cards dated 20.12.2024	R-9
10.	Proof of Affixture of Sale Notice dated 20.12.2024	R-10
11.	Paper publication of the Sale Notice issued in English daily namely Indian Express and in one issued in Tamil daily namely Dhinamani Chennai Edition dated 25.12.2024	R-11
12.	Sale Certificate issued in favour of Auction Purchaser dated 03.03.2025	R-12
13.	Letter given by the applicant to the respondent dated 25.08.2023	R-13
14.	Mail given by the respondent to the applicants dated 08.09.2023	R-14
15.	Letter given by the third party to the respondent to return the upfrount amount of Rs.50 Lakhs dated 13.06.2025	R-15

¶217

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶218

Item No.1:-

¶219

All that piece and parcel of Land and Building bearing Door No.9A, Parthasarathy Nagar, 11th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai - 600088, Land measuring to an extent of 5892 sq.ft., Comprised in Survey Nos.208/15 and 208/16, T.S No.77/1, 78, Adambakkam Village. Tambaram Taluk,

¶220

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:55 hours

SA No.219/2025

29.04.2026

Kancheepuram District and presently within the Corporation of Chennai and,

¶225

Bounded on the;

¶226