Dismissed

Rizwan v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRT16 Mar 2026SA/290/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the applicant challenged a possession notice issued by DCB Bank Ltd citing alleged procedural violations. The DRT-III Chennai found the bank had complied with all statutory requirements and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to set aside the Section 13(4) possession notice dated 31.03.2023 was dismissed.

Rizwan versus Dcb Bank Limited — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

SA No.290/2023

16.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 290 of 2023

¶8

H.Rizwan, S/o. Mohammed Hussain, No.102, 6th Stret, Thiru vi ka Nagar, Sembium, Perambur, Chennai- 600 011. ….Applicant -Vs-

¶9

The Authorized Officer DCB Bank Ltd, 1st Floor, 6th Rajaji Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A. Kumar Counsel for respondent : M/s. R. Chandramohan

¶12

ORDER ON SA 290/2023

¶13

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 15.05.2023 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].

¶14

The applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 31.03.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession Notice is Rs.28,70,727/-

SA No.290/2023

16.03.2026

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶19

Applicant had availed credit facility to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs from respondent bank during the year 2017, by mortgaging the schedule mentioned property. It is submitted that the applicant was regular in repayment of installments without any delay or default, however owing to Covid-19 pandemic situation, applicant suffered loss of income and hence, could not continue to remit EMIs.

¶20

It is the case of applicant that he has made several payments, respondent bank without considering the payments made, had classified the loan account as NPA on 12.04.2022. It submitted that the respondent, without issuing mandatory demand notice, all of a sudden issued possession notice on 31.03.2023. It is further submitted by applicant that he is ready and willing to settle the dues within a reasonable time period. However, respondent bank without considering the requests of applicant, had arbitrarily issued impugned possession notice, without following the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made there under.

¶21

In the grounds, it is contended that the bank has not followed the procedures under Rule 8(1) of SIE Rules, has not affixed the possession notice on the property; not published in two leading newspapers as per Rule 8(2) of SIE Rules and the possession notice does not contains any proper measurement and identification of the secured asset.

SA No.290/2023

16.03.2026

The classification of loan account as NPA is in violation of RBI guidelines. The bank has failed to serve the possession notice and satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed under the various provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the relevant rules framed thereunder.

¶26

The Possession Notice issued by the respondent bank is against the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is seen that the outstanding due amount is not crystallized to the applicant before issuance of the notice under 13(4) (a) of the Act. Hence, the applicant prays to set aside the Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 31.03.2023.

¶27

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶28

It is the case of the bank that the applicant is a borrower along with his wife Ms. Hajeera Bi. R who is the principal borrower availed business loan/mortgage loan in the name of Wood World vide sanction letter dated 14.06.2017. The applicant after repaying few instalments committed default in the repayment as a result the account was classified as NPA on 12.04.2022.

¶29

The respondent bank has issued the U/s.13(2) demand notice dated 12.01.2023 calling upon the applicant to repay an outstanding amount of Rs.28,70,727/- as on 12.01.2023. The demand notice was duly served on the applicant on 20.01.2023 as well as on the Co-Borrower on 19.01.2023.

¶30

After due service of demand notice, the respondent proceeded by issuing symbolic possession notice dated 31.03.2023 against the secured assets and was served on 08.04.2023, the compliance of Rule 8(1) of SIE

SA No.290/2023

16.03.2026

Rules, and affixture of the possession notice which is evidenced through a photograph at the conspicuous part of the secure assets. The respondent has effected newspaper publication in two leading newspaper having wide circulation the area on 06.04.2023. The possession notice published in two newspapers one in English “Business Standard” Chennai Edition and another one in Vernacular Language Tamil Daily “The Hindu”.

¶35

The applicant is due to respondent the outstanding amount of Rs.28,70,727/- as on 12.01.2022 and with further interest as per the contractual rate from 13.01.2022. Hence respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶36

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

¶37

It is manifest from the records that the applicant is the borrower along with his wife Ms. Hajeera Bi. R who is the principal borrower availed business loan/mortgage loan vide sanction letter dated 14.06.2017 and in the name of Wood World.

¶38

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 continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 12.04.2022 in accordance with RBI guidelines.

¶39

The respondent had issued the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.01.2023 claiming an amount of Rs.28,70,727/- due as on 12.01.2023 along with other charges. The demand notice sent by RPAD which the

SA No.290/2023

16.03.2026

applicant as well as the Co-borrower have received the demand notice as per the Acknowledgement card produced at Pg.11 and 12 of counter and notice sent to another address returned “unclaimed” as seen at Pg.17-20, whereas the demand notice served to M/s. Wood World, two address was returned “unclaimed’’ produced at Pg.13-16 of respondent bank’s typed set. The notice returned unclaimed is deemed service and the borrower M/s. Wood World is represented by Rizwan. H.

¶44

In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice, as the borrower and the guarantor did not liquated the liability, the respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 31.03.2023 and the notice sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgment, which the applicant as well as the Co-borrowers have received the possession notice as per the Acknowledgement card produced at Pg.27,28,35, and another address “unclaimed” return to sender which is produced at Pg.29-34. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “Business Standard” and another one in Tamil “The Hindu” both dated 06.04.2023 and the Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.25 and 26 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶45

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 have established the procedures as contemplated under the Act in enforcing the security with supporting documents as required

SA No.290/2023

16.03.2026

under the Act. Hence it is concluded that the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.01.2023 and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 31.03.2023 are

¶50

valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

¶51

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.

¶52

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

¶53

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 16^th day of March, 2026)

¶54

ANNEXURES

¶55

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶56

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Possession Notice dated 31.03.2023.	A-1

¶57

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶58

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Sanction Letter dated 14.06.2017.	R-1
2.	Demand Notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 12.01.2023.	R-2
3.	Postal Acknowledgement cared.	R-3
4.	Possession Notice dated 31.03.2023.	R-4
5.	Affixture Photos.	R-5
6.	Postal Acknowledgement Card dated 08.04.2023.	R-6
7.	Newspaper Publication in the Business Standard (English) and The Hindu (Tamil Daily).	R-7
8.	Statement of Accounts.	R-8

SA No.290/2023

16.03.2026

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶63

All that piece and parcel of Land and Building bearing Door No.3/40, Sivanandha Nagar 1st Street, Ambattur, Chennai -600053, Land Measuring an extent of 678.5 Sq.ft., together with building. comprised in Gramantham Survey No.282/7, Present T.S.No.74/2, Block No.58, WardB, Situated at Ambattur Village and Taluk, Thiruvallur District, being land bounded on the

¶64

North by: Canal, South by: Sivanandha Nagar 1st Main Road, East by: Property belongs to Mr.Kasi, West by: Property belongs to Mr.Perumal (Presently owned by Mr.Rizwan) Item No.1 (348.5 Sq.Ft) Measuring

¶65

East to West on the Northern Side - 10 Feet 3Inches, East to West on the Southern Side - 10 Feet 3 Inches, North to South on the Eastern Side - 34 Feet 0 Inches, North to South on the Western Side - 34 Feet 0 Inches, Item No.2 (330 Sq.Ft) Measuring

¶66

East to West on the Northern Side - 16 Feet 5Inches, East to West on the Southern Side - 16 Feet 5 Inches, North to South on the Eastern Side - 20 Feet 0 Inches, North to South on the Western Side - 20 Feet 0 Inches,

¶67

In all total extent of land measuring 678.5 Sq.Ft. Situated within the Sub Registration District of Ambattur and Registration District of North Chennai.

¶68

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

Rizwan v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan v. Dcb Bank 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 Zulaikha Motors PvtLtd

P Sivaramakrishnan versus Union Bank of India

Bank of India versus M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Subathira

M s Paterson Cancer Center P Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Premalatha s versus Repco Home Finance Limited