Dismissed

K Ganesan v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

DRT2 Apr 2026SA/244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This SARFAESI application by a borrower sought to set aside an order granting physical possession of mortgaged property. The Debts Recovery Tribunal examined whether the asset manager followed statutory notice provisions and procedures under the SARFAESI Act before obtaining possession.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with no costs. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of with no costs.

K Ganesan versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private… — Writ and Judicial Review | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.244/2023

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI

¶4

DATED THIS 02^nd DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶6

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶7

SA No. 244/2023

¶8

K. Ganesan, S/o. Krishnan, Plot No. 54, 55, Salom Cottage, KVR Nagar, 2^nd Street, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Iyyer Bungalow, Madurai – 625 007.

¶9

--- Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd., No. 9, M.P. Nagar, First Street, Kongu Nagar Extn, Tirupur – 641 607.

¶12

--- Defendant FI

¶13

Appearance of Advocates: Mr. V. Kishore Kumar ---- Counsel for the Applicant Mr. V. Kasirajan ---- Counsel for the Defendant FI

¶14

This SARFAESI Application was heard in the presence of Counsels for the Applicant and Defendant FI and fixed for passing final order before me and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsels for the Applicant and Defendant FI and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

1. This application has been filed under Sec.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 by the Applicant praying to Set aside the Order of Ld. CJM, Madurai passed in Cr.M.P. 1090 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022 in pursuance to Advocate Commissioner Notice dated 26.06.2023 and quash the same.

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

SA No.244/2023

¶19

2 . The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicant are as follows:-

¶20

The Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,68,746/- as housing loan from the Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd, Madurai branch. The monthly installment amount fixed for a sum of Rs. 56,490/-. The said loan was sanctioned to the Applicant by hypothecation of the property herein mentioned as Schedule, which belongs to the Applicant. On 13.01.2014, the Applicant mortgaged his property to the Defendant through a deposit of title deeds in document no. 112 of 2014 on the file of Thallakulam Sub Registrar Office, Madurai. The Applicant’s wife namely G. Rajam also a co-borrower. Thereafter the said Fullerton India Credit co. Ltd had made over the said mortgage to the Defendant FI. Hence, the Applicant has been paying monthly installments to the Defendant FI without fail.

¶21

It is further submitted that due to the business loss, the Applicant also met with huge financial problem and therefore he was unable to pay the monthly installment. Therefore, the Defendant issued the Demand Notice dated 19.11.2021 u/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 45,26,893/-. In the meanwhile, the Applicant directly approached the Defendant and explained that they were not in a position to pay the entire loan outstanding amount and requested to extend the time for making principal amount with reasonable interest. The Defendant also assured to grant time for paying loan amount and advised to pay some dues and to continue the same. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation, the Applicant has not paid further dues to the Defendant FI. Hence, the Defendant FI issued Possession Notice U/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, the mode of service of the Notice as unlawful and against the procedures laid in SARFAESI Act dated 31.03.2022. The provision contemplated for issuance of notice has not been followed.

¶22

It is further submitted that finding no other remedy, the Applicant approached the Defendant FI and explained that he is ready to pay principal outstanding amount with reasonable interest without fail. In the meanwhile, the Defendant filed petition before the Ld. CJM, Madurai seeking to take Physical Possession of the Applicant’s property without the knowledge of the Applicant in Cr.M.P.No.1090 of 2022 and the same was allowed on 12.08.2022. However, in the petition filed before the Ld. CJM, the Defendant FI stated that he issued Demand Notice for a sum of Rs. 54,95,558/- dated 27.08.2021. But, the Defendant FI in the Demand Notice dated 27.08.2021 & Final Demand Notice dated 19.11.2021 stating the total outstanding amount of Rs. 45,26,893/-. By suppressing the above fact, the Defendant FI obtained the Impugned Order dated 12.08.2022 from the Ld. CJM, Madurai, which is liable to be set aside.

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

SA No.244/2023

¶25

It is further submitted that the Applicant’s property is a dwelling house and the same was occupied by the tenant and the Applicant’s family also residing in the very same property. By knowing the same, the Defendant by suppressing the entire fact, he got order to take Physical Possession of the Applicant’s property. The Applicant was always willing to repay the loan amount due to the financial crisis he could not mobilize funds to settle the loan account. Now the Applicant assures to repay the outstanding principal amount within short span of time. Now the Applicant came to know that the Defendant is trying to take Physical Possession of the Applicant’s property. As on day, the Applicant totally paid a sum of Rs. 21,85,000/- towards the principal loan amount.

¶26

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶27

Madurai District, Madurai North Registration District, Thallakulam Sub-Registrar, Madurai North Taluk, Athikulam Village, Ayan Nanja land comprised in Old Survey Nos. 1/1, 1/3, 4/1 and 4/3, at present as per sub division the land comprised in R. S. No. 5/1 and extent of 0.15.5 acres, R.S.No. 5/3 and extent of 1.47.5 acres in Patta No. 70 and 71, a total extent of 4 acres 2 cents converted into several house plots approved by the Naganakulam Panchayat in Approval No. 172/2002 dated 24.02.2003 in which the Plot No. 54 and 55 lies in R. S. No. 5/3 within boundaries for Plot No. 54.

¶28

North : Plot No. 47 East : Plot No. 53 South: 23 ft. wide East West Road West : Plot No. 53

¶29

Within measuring East-West; Northern side 30 ft., Southern side 30 ft., South-North Western side 40 ft, Eastern side 40 ft. a total extent of 1200 Sq.ft., of Vacant site and boundaries for Plot No. 55.

¶30

North : Plot No. 46 East : Plot No. 54 South: 23 ft. wide East West Road West : Plot No. 56

¶31

Within measuring East-West, Northern side 30 ft., Southern side 30 ft., South-North Western side 40 ft., Eastern side 40 ft. a total extent of 1200 Sq.ft., of vacant site A total extent of 2400 sq.ft. along with right to usage the 23 feet wide road lies on Southern side of the plots and all other common road shows in lay out.

¶32

The property belonging to K. Ganesan.

¶33

Page 3 of 8

¶34

SA No.244/2023

¶35

The Applicant has submitted the following List of documents in support of his claim in the SA, which are as follows:

¶36

S.No.	Date	Particulars
1.	13.01.2014	Copy oftheMemorandumof Deposit of TitleDeeds
2.	27.08.2021	Notice u/s.13(2) read with Section 13(13) of SARFAESI Act
3.	19.11.2021	Notice u/s.13(2) ofSARFAESI Act
4.	31.03.2022	Notice u/s.13(4) ofSARFAESI Act
5.	26.06.2023	Copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner to take Physical Possession of the house premises oftheApplicant
6.	12.08.2022	Copy ofthe order inCr.M.P.No.1090 of2022

¶37

3. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Defendant FI appeared before this Tribunal and filed Vakalat, Affidavit-In-Objection, typed set & Additional Typed set of papers wherein they have submitted that the present SARFAESI Application is barred by limitation and hence it has to be dismissed on that score itself.

¶38

It is further submitted that the Applicant and his wife have jointly approached M/s. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd, for a Loan against Property and the Applicant agreed to mortgage his under mentioned Schedule of Property as security. M/s. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd, sanctioned a Term Loan for a sum of Rs. 35,68,746/- to the Applicant with his wife as Coborrower. The Applicant and his wife have jointly executed Loan agreement at Madurai on 18.12.2013 in favour of M/s. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. The present outstanding as on 10.04.25 is Rs. 65,41,716/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakhs Forty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixteen only). The Applicant offered to secure the outstanding amount in the said Term Loan availed by the mortgaging the Schedule Mentioned Property, by way of executing the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 13.01.2014 and registered as Doc.No. 112/2014 and also by depositing the Sale Deed dated 10.03.2004 and reg. as Doc. No. 811/2004 entitling the Schedule Mentioned Property to the Applicant.

¶39

It is further submitted that M/s. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., (FICCL) is the secured creditor, in whose favour security interest is created, for due repayment of the financial assistance availed by the Applicant herein, and thereafter assigned by (FICCL) in favour of M/s. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. As the Applicant failed and neglected to repay the above said loan availed, the account became irregular and even interest was not served by the Applicant. Hence, the account was declared as NPA on 31.01.2017 as per RBI guidelines. Hence, the Defendant has issued Demand

¶40

Page 4 of 8

¶41

SA No.244/2023

¶42

Notice U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 27.08.21 to the Applicant herein. The above said Demand Notice sent to the Applicant by Registered post along with AD on 28.08.2021 and it was acknowledged. The Applicant raised untenable objections to the Demand Notice on 27.10.2021 and the Defendant herein provided pointwise reply to the objections on 11.11.2021.

¶43

It is further submitted that the Applicant failed to clear the liability and no repayment was made in the loan account, the Defendant Bank took possession of the secured interest on 31.03.2022 u/s. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The Notice was affixed in the property and the Notice was also sent by Registered post on 31.03.2022. Paper Publications were also affected on 02.04.2022 in both English and Tamil dailies. The Applicant has not cleared the liabilities despite the reminders of the Defendant. Hence, the Defendant left with no other option, except to file a Petition U/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Ld. CJM, Madurai in Cr. M. P. No. 1090/2022 and the same was allowed on 12.08.2022. A warrant was issued on 11.05.23 to an Advocate Commissioner to execute the order of Ld. CJM, Madurai and an attempt was made to comply with the Order on 30.06.2023 by the Advocate Commissioner after issuing vacate notice on 26.06.2023. Thus, the Company has followed the provisions of law scrupulously.

¶44

It is further submitted that the Demand Notice was issued on 27.08.2021 for an amount of Rs. 45,26,893.88p. Subsequently, while filing Section 14 Petition before the Ld. CJM, Madurai the amount claimed was Rs. 54,95,558/- upto 20.03.2022. Since the Applicant has not remitted any amount after issuance of the Demand Notice, the monthly interest was added to the outstanding dues and the amount claimed had become Rs. 54,95,558/. Hence, it is submitted that there is no error or suppression of facts as alleged by the Applicant. In the present Application, the Hon'ble Tribunal passed Conditional order in IA No. 1189/2023 to pay a sum of Rs. 16,50,000/-. But the Applicant failed to comply with the conditional order. The Applicant thereafter filed Appeal before the Hon’ble, DRAT, Chennai, which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai by giving effect to the conditional order dated 07.08.2024.

¶45

It is further submitted that the Defendant has scrupulously followed the provisions of law and procedures contemplated in the RBI guidelines. Thus, the classification of the account as NPA was as per RBI guidelines on Assets classification. The Applicant herein has accepted the content of the Demand Notice dated 27.08.2021. Hence, there cannot be any valid defence and objection laid by the Applicant, till date. Hence, there is no bonafide in the Application. The Defendant Company has served the notice on the Applicant.

¶46

Page 5 of 8

¶47

SA No.244/2023

¶48

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the Application with cost and thus render justice.

¶49

Typed set of papers filed by the Defendant FI

¶50

S.No.	Date	Description of Documents
1	27.08.21	Demand Notice withpostal receipts
2	07.09.21	Track consignment copy
3	27.10.21	Representation letter received from the Applicant
4	19.11.21	Replyletter issued bythe Defendant alongwithpostal receipts
5	31.03.22	Possession Notice issued bythe Defendant alongwithpostal receipts
6	11.04.22	AD Card received from Applicant
7	02.04.22	Paper Publication made in English daily
8	02.04.22	Paper Publication made in Tamil daily
9	31.03.22	Photo affixture of Possession Notice
10	10.04.25	Statement of Accounts

¶51

Additional Typed set of papers filed by the Defendant FI

¶52

S.No.	Date	Description of Documents
1	2.04.22	Original Paper Publication made in English daily
2	02.04.22	Original Paper Publication made in Tamil daily

¶53

4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS, THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS: -

¶54

I. Whether the Applicant has been able to prove the case in his favour?

¶55

II. Whether the Applicant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

¶56

5. Having heard the parties and after going through the entire documents available on records, I find that the Applicant has availed Term Loan for a sum of Rs. 35,68,746/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs Sixty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty-Six only) from M/s. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited. The Applicant and his wife jointly executed Loan agreement on 18.12.2013 in favour of M/s. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited and mortgaged the Schedule Mentioned Property, by way of executing the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 13.01.2014 and registered as Doc. No. 112/2014. I also find that the security interest is created by the Applicant for due repayment of financial assistance in favour of M/s.

¶57

Page 6 of 8

¶58

SA No.244/2023

¶59

Fullerton India Credit Company Limited (FICCL) who is the secured creditor. Thereafter, it was assigned to M/s. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., (i.e. the Defendant herein) vide an Assignment Agreement on 26.02.21 and registered with SRO Pallavaram as Document No. 6299/2021.

¶60

I also find that since the Applicant failed to repay the loan amount, the loan account has been classified as NPA on 31.01.2017. Subsequently, the Defendant Bank issued a Demand Notice dated 27.08.2021 u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 45,26,893.88p (Rupees Forty-Five Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Three and paise Eighty-Eight only) (Page nos. 1 to 5 of Bank’s Typed set of papers). The Applicant in his averments admitted the fact that he has received the Demand Notice dated 27.08.2021. I also find that the Applicant in his main SA at page nos. 23 to 25 has filed the Bank’s reply dated 19.11.2021 in response to the Applicant’s reply/representation dated 27.10.2021 to the Defendant Bank U/s. 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act, in respect of the Demand Notice dated 27.08.2021. Thereafter, it is further case of the Applicant due to Covid-19, Pandemic period, he has not paid further dues to the Defendant Bank. Hence, the Defendant Bank issued Possession Notice dated 31.03.2022 u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act (Page nos. 15 to 18 of Bank Typed set of Papers). I also find that the Defendant Bank has filed AD cards as a proof for having delivered the Possession Notice dated 31.03.2022 to the Borrower/Co-borrower (Page nos. 19 to 20 of Bank’s Typed set of Papers). I also find that the Defendant Bank has filed Original Paper Publication of Possession Notice dated 31.03.2022 in both English and Tamil dailies (Page nos. 1 & 6 of Bank’s Additional Typed set of papers) and xerox of Photograph showing the affixture of Possession Notice on the property (Page no. 23 of Bank’s Typed set of papers). The Applicant failed to mention any specific irregularity in issuance of Possession Notice dated 31.03.2022 by the Defendant Bank.

¶61

Since the Applicant failed to clear the liabilities, despite the reminders of the Defendant, the Defendant Bank had filed a Petition u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Ld. CJM, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No. 1090/2022 and

¶62

Page 7 of 8

¶63

SA No.244/2023

¶64

obtained the Impugned Order dated 12.08.2022. I also find that the Applicant had filed a copy of the Impugned Order dated 12.08.2022 passed in Cr.M.P.No. 1090/2022 by the Ld. CJM, Madurai wherein I do not find any irregularity as stated by the Applicant. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find that Defendant Bank has followed the procedures strictly as prescribed under SARFAESI Act & Rules and the Applicant has failed to prove the case in his favour.

¶65

In the result ,

¶66

SA No. 244/2023 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶67

Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of. No costs.

¶68

Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 2^nd April 2026.

¶69

sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶70

Dictated & corrected by me sd/-

¶71

(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶72

Uploaded on 16.04.26

¶73

Page 8 of 8

K Ganesan v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Ganesan v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

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

Karur Vysya Bank versus v Amuthan

Punjab National Bank versus C Moorthy

S N Ganapathy versus The Recovery Officer Drt Madurai

Canara Bank versus K Vijayalakshmi

Bank of Baroda versus v.Saravana kumar

Punjab National Bank versus J and J Plastics