Dismissed

Srinivasan R v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

DRT5 Jan 2026SA/263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging a Section 13(4) Possession Notice issued by the Respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the secured creditor established compliance with statutory procedures including the issuance of demand notices and publication, permitting enforcement of security.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application challenging the Possession Notice dated 14.03.2023 is dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any, stands vacated.

Srinivasan R versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

SA No.263/2023

05.01.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 05^th day of January, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 263 of 2023

¶8

Srinivasan. R S/o. Mr. R. Ramachandran, No.514/3, 10^th Street, South Colony, ICF, Chennai – 600 038. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, Formerly Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited Represented by its Authorized Officer,

¶11

Registered Office at Unit No.601, 6^th Floor, Piramal Amithi Building, Piramal Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, Opp. to Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai – 400 070. …Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P. Jesus Moris Ravi Counsel for Respondent : Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan

¶14

ORDER ON SA No.263/2023

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 24.04.2023

¶16

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.263/2023

05.01.2026

The applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 14.03.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession notice is Rs.27,48,772/-

¶21

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶22

3.1 The Applicant has availed 2 Housing Loans from the Respondent bank from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited for a sum of Rs.27,93,931/- and Rs.15,95,292/- vide sanction dated 21.03.2014 and 24.09.2015 respectively. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited was admitted under the Corporate Insolvency and Resolution Process vide order of the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai dated 03.12.2019.

¶23

3.2 It is submitted that the account has been classified as NPA and after the classification of account as NPA, the applicant has paid totally a sum of Rs.1,13,544/- vide A/c. No.01000004511 and Rs.54,414/- vide A/c. No.01000005227 which is not been credited to the respective loan accounts.

¶24

3.3 Further the respondent without issuing the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and without issuing the Section 13(4) Possession Notice to the Applicant, affixed an incomplete possession Notice dated 14.03.2023 outside the Secured Asset (Schedule mentioned property) pertaining to A/c.No.01000004511 and published the same in the “Dinakaran” Newspaper dated 20.03.2023, thereby failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act.

SA No.263/2023

05.01.2026

3.4 In the grounds, it is contended that the respondent bank failed to issue Demand Notice under Section 13(2) and not published the possession notice in the English Newspaper which is mandatory under the Act. The account of the Applicants is not liable to be declared as NPA. The Bank has failed to adhere to Rule 3 of the SIE Rules, the demand notice is not served to all the applicants. The Affixture of the Possession Notice is a grave violation of Section 13(4) (a) and Rule 8 of SIE Rules, which require the authorized officer to take possession of the secured asset by delivering a notice in the (Appendix IV) and affixing it to the door or another conspicuous part of the property.

¶29

3.5 It is contended that the Possession Notice under Section 13(4) is not issued to all borrowers, guarantors, owners of the property which is mandatory under the Act and law. The Respondent Bank failed to follow the procedures as contemplated under SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines. Hence prays to set aside the Possession Notice dated 14.03.2023.

¶30

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶31

4.1 The bank has filed detailed counter along Typed set of documents and denies all the averments made in the present SA. The applicant along with other borrowers had availed a loan from the bank for financial assistance under the Loan Code 00004511 for a sum of Rs.27,93,931/- on 31.03.2014. The Applicant had executed the Loan Agreements and other relevant documents for availing the loan facility.

SA No.263/2023

05.01.2026

4.2 Thus, to secure the repayment of the said loan facility availed, the Applicants had mortgaged their property by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds which was duly registered in the respective SRO. It is pertinent to note that the loan account was availed by the Applicant and other borrower against the property which has been registered under CERSAI in accordance with the SARFAESI Act.

¶36

4.3 The Applicants defaulted in the repayment of EMI amounts and failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of Loan Agreement in spite of many reminder calls given to the applicant. Hence, the loan account was classified as NPA on 12.05.2021 in accordance with Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that all payments made by the Applicants have been duly credited to the loan account and will be reflected in the statement of account.

¶37

4.4 The Applicants did not regularize the loan account, hence, the Bank has issued the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) on 26.02.2022 calling upon the applicants to repay an outstanding amount of Rs.27,48,772/- as on 31.01.2022. The Demand Notice returned with an endorsement as “Unclaimed” and “Refused” on two of the addresses. The said notice was duly dispatched to both the Applicant and other borrower, published in two leading newspaper one in vernacular language, Tamil newspaper and other in English newspaper dated 23.03.2022 and the service of Demand Notice was completed as envisaged in Rule 3(1) of the SIE Rules.

SA No.263/2023

05.01.2026

4.5 The Applicant and other borrower neither made any representation nor settled the loan within 60 days from the date of notice. The respondent has always been open to an amicable settlement provided that any proposal is within the framework of the financial business parlance.

¶42

4.6 Subsequently, the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Possession Notice dated 14.03.2023 under Section 13(4) which has been duly dispatched to the applicant, affixed in the conspicuous part of the property and also published in two leading newspapers one in vernacular Language Tamil and another in English on 20.03.2023 within 7 days from the date of issuance of the Possession Notice. The Bank had followed all the procedures as contemplated under SARFAESI Act and Rules 3(1), 8(1) & 8(2) of SIE Rules.

¶43

4.7 It is submitted that the bank has not charged excessive interest as alleged by the Applicant, and the interest charged are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and norms and guidelines of the RBI are strictly followed by the Respondent and the officers.

¶44

4.8 The Applicants made false statements in their affidavit before this Tribunal with the intention to mislead for wrongful gain in accordance with the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in order dated 11.10.2017 in W.A.No.367 of 2017 M. Lilly Vs District Collector . Hence respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

SA No.263/2023

05.01.2026

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

¶49

5.1 It is manifest from the records that the applicant along with other borrowers had availed a Housing Loan Code 00004511 for a sum of Rs.27,93,931/- on 31.03.2014 and had executed the Loan Agreements and other relevant documents in favor of Primal Capital and Housing Finance Limited (PCHFL) and formerly known as Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited.

¶50

5.2 The applicant mortgaged his immovable property as security towards the credit facility and had deposited the title deeds which has been registered in the respective SRO. The equitable mortgage is registered before the central registry dated 28.08.2023, and the respondent bank had filed CERSAI report duly evidencing registration of the security interest with the central registry which is produced at Pg.4345 of counter.

¶51

5.3 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 Covid. 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.

¶52

5.4 The respondent had issued the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 26.02.2022 claiming an amount of Rs.27,48,772.00/- due as on 31.01.2022 along with other charges. The demand notice sent by RPAD

¶53

SA No.263/2023

¶54

7 05.01.2026

¶55

returned with an endorsement as “Unclaimed” and “Refused” at the addresses, returned cover produced at Page No.25-28 of respondent bank’s typed set and demand notice is also published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinakaran” both dated 23.02.2022 and affixture of demand notice is produced at pg.31 and 32. Thus the service of demand notice is complete as contemplated under the Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶56

5.5 In spite of service of demand notice, the applicant neither raised any objection to the demand made under S.13[3A] nor liquidated the entire liability within 60 days, hence the respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 14.03.2023, the possession notice sent to applicant returned with endorsement “No such person in the address” at first address, “On hold Addressee Absent-Intimation delivered” “On hold Door Locked-Intimation delivered” second address, “Item Returned Addressee left without instructions” “On hold Door Locked-Intimation delivered” at third address, and “Item Returned Addressee Left without instructions” “On hold Door Locked-Intimation delivered” as evidenced from Postal Track Report filed by respondent bank at Pg.35-38, and affixture of Possession Notice produced at pg.41 and 42 of typed set of documents respectively.

¶57

5.6 The notice sent to the address available by RPAD to with the respondent bank and admittedly RPAD covers have returned with an endorsement “Door Locked-Intimation delivered”. Thus it is evident that the postal authorities have intimated about the notice addressed to the

SA No.263/2023

05.01.2026

applicant and have intimated them to collect from the post office. In spite of intimation the applicant has failed to receive the notice. Hence it is deemed service under the General Clause Act. Possession notice is also published in two newspapers one in English “Business Standard” and another one in Tamil “Dinakaran” both dated 20.03.2023.

¶62

5.7 Though the applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) possession notice have not pointed out any illegalities in the measure taken by the bank in enforcing the security available to them. On the other hand, the respondent bank established the procedures as contemplated under the Act in enforcing the security with supporting documents as required under the Act. Hence, it is concluded that the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 26.02.2022 and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 14.03.2023 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

¶63

5.8 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. Sd/-

¶64

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

¶65

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 05^th day of January, 2026)

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶68

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Letter of Offer cum Acceptance dated 21.03.2014.	A-1

SA No.263/2023

05.01.2026

2.	Letter of Offer cum Acceptance dated 24.09.2015.	A-2
3.	Statement of Accounts	A-3
4.	Payment Proofs	A-4
5.	Statement of Accounts	A-5
6.	Acknowledgement for Complaint dated 14.03.2023.	A-6
7.	Incomplete Possession Notice affixed outside the Secured Asset dated 14.03.2023.	A-7
8.	Loan Pre-Closure Statement dated 27.03.2023.	A-8
9.	Newspaper Publication of Possession Notice dated 20.03.2023 in the Dinakaran	A-9

¶73

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶74

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Copy of the Demand Notice issued U/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act along with its Despatch proof, service proof, Paper publications and affixture dated 26.02.2022.	R-1
2.	Copy of the Possession Notice issued U/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act along with its Despatch Proof, service proof, Paper publication and Affixture dated 14.03.2023.	R-2
3.	CERSAI Report dated 28.08.2023.	R-3

¶75

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶76

Plot No.6 part, Sri Lakshmi Nagar, 3^rd Cross Street, Puthagaram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 099.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

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

Srinivasan R v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasan R v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance 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

Bank of Baroda versus Ravi Coconut Traders

Union Bank of India versus Altaf Ahamed

Axis Bank versus M/s.Pio Pax Private Limited

S v Civcons Private Limited versus Deustche Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Felix Arokiarajan

State Bank of India versus Buchappa Fuels