Dismissed

S v. Civcons Private Limited v Deustche Bank

DRT5 Jan 2026SA/307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai addressed an application filed by a borrower challenging a Securitization Application. The applicants contended that the bank arbitrarily proceeded with possession and NPA classification without proper records and served notices correctly. The court examined the procedural compliance regarding demand and possession notices. It found sufficient evidence of proce

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No. 307 of 2023 was dismissed. Any interim order granted previously stands vacated.

S v Civcons Private Limited versus Deustche Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.307/2023

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. 307 of 2023

¶8

M/s. S.V. Civcons Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director Mr. Sathya Kumar.Y Old No.2, New No.56, 1^st Street, T.K.S. Nagar, Thiruvottiyur,

¶9

Chennai – 600 019.

¶10

Mr. Yeduvakakrishnam Naidu S/o. Yeduvaka Sathya Narayana Old No.2, New No.56, 1^st Street, T.K.S. Nagar, Thiruvottiyur,

¶11

Chennai – 600 019. ….Applicants

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

The Authorized Officer, Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Bank House No.4-4A Western Tower, Sunny Side, Shafi Mohammed Road, Thousand lights, Chennai – 600 006 …Respondent

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Kalidass Counsel for Respondent : Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan

¶16

ORDER ON SA No.307/2023

¶17

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 01.06.2023

¶18

under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short

¶19

the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured

SA No.307/2023

05.01.2026

creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶24

The applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 29.04.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession notice is Rs.2,84,07,615.94/-

¶25

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶26

The applicant availed a Loan Against Property to the tune of Rs.1,55,00,000/- vide bearing A/c.No.300029657230019 and Cash Credit Facility to the tune of Rs.1,43,00,000/- vide A/c.No.100029657230019 from the respondent bank against the property by creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds.

¶27

It is contended that the applicant was regular in their repayment till November 2022 and repaid Rs.2,00,00,000/- by way of Cheque/Demand Draft/Cash deposit and also by Easy Monthly. Due to Corona Pandemic situation has defaulted in their monthly instalment and the Respondent Bank issued Sec.13(2) Demand Notice on 06.02.2023 of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, the respondent had issued under Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 29.04.2023 of the Act for repayment of Rs.2,84,07,615.94/-.

¶28

Even though the applicants were duly servicing the facility properly, the respondent bank arbitrarily proceeded with further actions under SARFAESI Act and issued a possession notice which is not in conformity with the rules.

SA No.307/2023

05.01.2026

In the grounds, it is contended that the classification of loan account as NPA is against the RBI guidelines. The outstanding amount shown in the Possession notice is mischievous and not borne out of records, as various payments made into loan account have not been duly credited and the demand made is highly excessive and illusive.

¶33

Further, the respondent bank has classified the loan account as NPA is contrary to Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act. The demand notice was not served to all the borrowers which is a sine quo non for further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act as mandated in 2010 (1) DRTC 489 (A.P.) and deliberately not serving the demand notice on the borrowers, the valuable right of the other borrowers under section13(3A) had been taken away by the respondent.

¶34

The Possession Notice is not made in leading newspapers, the respondent bank has not affixed the possession notice on the conspicuous part of the property which is in violation of Rule 8(1) of the SIE Rules. The applicant prays to set aside the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 29.04.2023.

¶35

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶36

The bank has filed the detailed counter contending that the applicants had availed Loan Against Property for sum of Rs.1,55,00,000/vide Loan A/c. No.300029657230019 which was disbursed to the Applicants on 27.10.2016 and the applicants had availed a Cash Credit Facility for a sum of Rs.1,43,00,000/vide Loan A/c.

SA No.307/2023

05.01.2026

No.100029657230019 which was disbursed to the Applicants on 28.10.2016.

¶41

The Applicant had executed the Loan Agreements and other relevant documents for availing the loan facilities and had mortgaged the property by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds duly registered in the respective SRO. The Applicants defaulted in the repayment of monthly installments and failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of Loan Agreement, in spite of many reminder calls. Hence, the loan account was classified as NPA on 14.06.2022 in accordance with Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶42

The Applicants did not make any repayment to regularize the loan account. Hence, the Bank has issued the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) on 06.02.2023 calling upon the applicants to repay an outstanding amount of Rs.1,35,35,273.73p/- as on 02.02.2023 and a sum of Rs.1,48,72,342.21p/- as on 01.02.2023 aggregating to a total sum of Rs.2,84,07,615.94p/- against the Loan A/c. No. 300029657230019 and 100029657230019 respectively. It is pertinent to note that the said Demand Notice was duly served upon the Applicants and service was completed as envisaged in Rule 3(1) of the SIE Rules.

¶43

Subsequently, the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Possession Notice dated 29.04.2023 under Section 13(4) which has been affixed in the conspicuous part of the property and also published in two leading newspapers one in vernacular Language Tamil and another in

SA No.307/2023

05.01.2026

English on 01.05.2023 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.

¶48

In spite of sufficient time for an amicable settlement, the Applicants evaded payment of the outstanding amount due and prolonged the matter. The payments made by the Applicants have been duly credited to the loan account and is reflected in the statement of account, and no excessive amount have been charged as alleged by the Applicants. The bank has levied interest and other charges in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreements.

¶49

The Applicants had obtained an Interim stay on conditional payment of Rs.28,41,000/- and were directed to deposit another 10% within five weeks thereafter and on compliance of second part of conditional order, there shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings under the Act. The applicant failed to comply with the second part of the conditional order even after this Hon’ble Tribunal giving sufficient time.

¶50

The Applicants have 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.

SA No.307/2023

05.01.2026

The Respondent bank denies all the averment made in the present SA and also followed all the measures as required. Hence respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶55

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

¶56

It is discernible from the records that the applicants had availed Loan Against Property for sum of Rs.1,55,00,000/- vide Loan A/c. No.300029657230019 disbursed to the Applicants on 27.10.2016 and the applicants had availed a Cash Credit Facility for a sum of Rs.1,43,00,000/- vide Loan A/c. No.100029657230019 disbursed to the Applicants on 28.10.2016. To secure the credit facilities availed, applicant has executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds has been registered in the respective SRO.

¶57

In fact the applicant do not dispute the availing of the credit facility mortgage of the properties as collateral security towards the credit facilities availed by the borrower. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 14.06.2022.

¶58

Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued S.13(2) Demand Notice dated 06.02.2023, where the notice clearly describes the types of loan availed, the nature of facility and the documents executed by the borrowers. Further the description of the properties is clearly mentioned in the S.13(2) demand notice.

SA No.307/2023

05.01.2026

The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice is sent by RPAD which the applicant have received the Demand Notice as per the Acknowledgement card produced at Pg.16-19 of counter. 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 29.04.2023 and the notice sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgment, which returned with postal endorsement as “No Such Person” which is produced at pg.22-25. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 01.05.2023 and the Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.28 - 31 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶63

The applicant in their written submissions have raised additional averments about classification of the Account as NPA is not in accordance with S.2[o] of the Act, however has failed to specify how the classification is bad. A mere statement without any proper and justifiable reasons cannot sustain. The averments which are not pleaded in SA is pleaded in the written submission which cannot be considered and the same stands rejected.

¶64

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.307/2023

05.01.2026

under the Act. Hence it is concluded that the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 06.02.2023 and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 29.04.2023 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

¶69

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/-

¶70

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

¶71

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 5^th day of January, 2026)

¶72

ANNEXURES

¶73

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶74

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Application U/S 17(1) of SARFAESI Act 2002 dated 30.05.2023.	A-1
2.	Statement of Accounts dated 28.10.2016.	A-2
3.	Paper Publication (Demand Notice) dated 11.02.2023.	A-3
4.	Deposit of Title Deed dated 20.12.2016.	A-4
5.	Demand Notice U/s 13(2) of the Act dated 06.02.2023.	A-5
6.	Possession Notice under Rule 8(1) of the Act dated 29.04.2023.	A-6

¶75

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶76

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Copy of the Demand Notice issued U/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Applicants along with Despatch and service proof dated 06.02.2023.	R-1
2.	Copy of the Possession Notice issued U/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to the Applicants along with Despatch, service proof, Paper publication and Affixture dated 29.04.2023.	R-2

SA No.307/2023

05.01.2026

SCHEDULE

All that the Piece and Parcel of the Residential property being Item No.1 land and Building, land measuring 3440 Sq.Ft Comprised in Survey Nos.564/3, 565, 566/2, 567 & 568. Thiruvottiyur Village, bearing Plot Nos.56, Bearing Door No.2A. T.K.S. Nagar, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019 and land

¶82

Bounded on the North by : 40 feet Road, South by : Plot No.59, East by : 30 feet Road, West by : Plot No.57,

¶83

And land measuring in the middle of this North to South on the both side 80 feet, East to West on northern side: 46 feet Western side 40 feet Item No.2 land and Buildings measuring 3200 Sq.Ft Comprised in Survey Nos.564/3, 565, 566/2, 567 & 568, Thiruvottiyur Village, bearing Plot No. 57, Bearing Door No.2A, T.K.S. Nagar, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019 and land Bounded on the

¶84

North by : 40 feet road, South by : Plot No.59, East by : Plot No.58, West by : Plot No.56,

¶85

And land measuring in the middle of this North to Southern both side 80 feet, East West to Northern side 40 feet, Southern side 40 feet, including 3200 Sq.ft Plot No.57 Sub-Registration District of Thiruvottiyur and registration district of North Chennai.

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

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

S v. Civcons Private Limited v Deustche Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S v. Civcons Private Limited v Deustche Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Srinivasan R versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Felix Arokiarajan

State Bank of India versus Buchappa Fuels