Disposed

Rajalakshmi v. Bank of India

DRT14 May 2026SA/336/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of a Sale Application challenging an auction sale. The challenged sale was upheld as parties reached a settlement where the bank issued a No Due Certificate, the auction purchaser paid an additional sum to applicants, and possession was handed over. The application was dismissed based on the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Settlement arrived; Demand Draft for Rs.20 lakhs issued; additional Rs.63,762 paid; applicants restrained from encumbering property; sale application disposed.

Rajalakshmi versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.336/2025

14.05.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 14^th day of May, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.336 of 2025

¶8

Mrs. M. Rajalakshmi, W/o. P. Muniyappan No.5114, C-1 Thendral Nagar Sogathur Dharmapuri – 636 809 2. Mr. P. Muniyappan S/o. Ponnusamy Plot No.38, 5114, C-1 Thendral Nagar Sogathur Dharmapuri – 636 809 ……Applicants -Vs1. Bank of India, Represented by its Authorized Officer Star House, No.324, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore – 641 001 ...1^st Respondent Bank ***** 2. S. Kumaravel C/o Athiyan Hotel No.28/5C-2, Nethaji Bye Pass Road Weavers Colony, Dharmapuri – 636 701 …..2^nd respondent /Auction purchaser ***** (Auction purchaser impleaded vide order in IA No.948/26 dated 14.05.2026)

¶9

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶10

Counsel for Applicants : M/s P.S. Prabu & S. Deepa Counsel for 1^st Respondent : Dr. S. Sathiyanarayanan Auction purchaser – Mr. S. Kumaravel, Party in person Sh. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan – Amicus Curiae

SA No.336/2025

14.05.2026

: - ORDER ON SA No.336 of 2025- :

¶15

The present SA is filed by applicant challenging the Sale Notice dated 16.04.2025 issued by respondent bank fixing the date of sale on 09.05.2025. The amount outstanding is Rs.22,28,118.63p.

¶16

Today, Counsel for applicant, applicants party in person along with their second son Sh. Nandakumar, Counsel for the respondent bank, second respondent / Auction Purchaser and Amicus Curiae Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan are present.

¶17

As directed, the applicant has filed IA, petition to implead the auction purchaser as 2^nd respondent. IA No.948/26 stands allowed directing the applicant to implead the auction purchaser as R-2 in the SA. Accordingly, the auction purchaser is impleaded as Respondent No.2.

¶18

The applicants are the borrowers, who have filed the present SA challenging the Sale Notice dated 16.04.2025 scheduling the property to be sold on 09.05.2025 for a reserve price of Rs.43,96,000/-. The respondent bank has successfully sold the property to the auction purchaser Mr. S. Kumaravel, who is the second respondent in the SA.

¶19

Before adjudication of the matter and before filing of objections / counter by the 1^st respondent bank, the matter is settled amicably between the applicants / borrowers and the auction purchaser in presence of the respondent bank’s counsel. It is seen that the parties have entered into a

SA No.336/2025

14.05.2026

written terms which is produced by the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Tribunal vide his report and typed set of documents dated 08.05.2026.

¶24

Further, this Tribunal had sought clarification from the Amicus Curiae with regard to the settlement details as the applicants were illiterates and were not able to assist the Tribunal regarding their settlement. A detailed discussion with the parties by the Amicus Curiae is filed along with audio and video recording in the pen drive, which is kept under custody of this Tribunal.

¶25

It is a matter of record that after successful completion of sale, respondent bank had remitted balance sale proceeds of Rs.17,36,238.65p to the borrower’s loan account, out of which they had already withdrawn a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as admitted by the applicant’s son. Subsequent to confirmation of sale, auction purchaser has already been handed over physical possession of the property by way of execution of Section 14 order and the possession is now with the auction purchaser.

¶26

The auction purchaser, on humanitarian grounds, considering that the applicants’ first son Sh. Sakthivel is handicapped, has arrived at a compromise to pay an additional sum of Rs.20 lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) over and above the sale consideration price and is ready with Demand Draft bearing No.918504 dated 30.04.2026 favouring Rajalakshmi Muniyappan (applicant herein) for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs, which is kept under the custody of Amicus curiae.

SA No.336/2025

14.05.2026

The auction purchaser on further deliberations considering the plight of the applicants, had offered to pay a further sum of Rs.63,762/- by tomorrow (i.e.,15.05.2026) along with Rs.20 lakhs being the balance amount of Rs.17,36,238/- (so as to round off to Rs.18 lakhs). It is also submitted by the auction purchaser that a sum of Rs.5000/- has already been paid to the applicants at the time of taking physical possession of the property in order to move their house hold items, the receipt of which is also admitted by the applicants herein.

¶31

The applicants, on receipt of the above sum of Rs.20 lakhs + Rs.5000/- + Rs.63,762/- undertakes not to cause any encumbrance or create any disturbance or hindrance to the auction purchaser in enjoying the subject property, either by themselves or by their sons or any other claimants, in any manner, whatsoever.

¶32

The first respondent bank has filed memo dated 14.05.2026 along with No Due Certificate which reads as “We hereby certify that there are no dues in the Home Loan Account bearing No.817275110000066 in the name of Mrs. M. Rajalakshmi M and Mr. P. Muniyappan as per our records as on 06.05.2026”.

¶33

Accordingly, the Compromise Memo dated 05.05.2026 which is duly signed by Applicants, counsel for applicants, Authorised Officer of respondent bank, counsel for respondent bank, Applicant’s Second son Mr. N. Nandha Kumar and auction purchaser, 2^nd respondent herein, is taken on

SA No.336/2025

14.05.2026

record. Memo filed by 1^st respondent bank along with No Due Certificate is also taken on record. The following order is passed:

¶38

(i) The Demand Draft for Rs.20 lakhs bearing No.918504 dated 30.04.2026 favouring Rajalakshmi Muniyappan is duly handed over to the applicants, along with their second son Mr. M. Nandakumar, who had affixed their signatures by way of Acknowledgment.

¶39

(ii) The auction purchaser has remitted the sum of Rs.63,762/- to the applicants’ son’s account (Mr. Nandhakumar) by way of UPI transaction reference No.613453024949 dated 14.05.2026.

¶40

(iii) The applicants are hereby restrained from causing any encumbrance or create any disturbance or hindrance to the 2^nd respondent / auction purchaser Mr. S. Kumaravel or anyone claiming right over the property, in enjoying the subject property henceforth, either by applicants themselves or by their sons or any other claimants, in any manner, whatsoever, failing which auction purchaser is at liberty to take appropriate action as per law.

¶41

(iv) Memo of Compromise dated 05^th May, 2026 shall form part of this order.

¶42

(v) The Tribunal places its appreciation on record for the Amicus Curiae, Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan for taking efforts to arrive at compromise.

¶43

The above order is read over in the Open Court to the applicants, their son, respondent bank, auction purchaser and Amicus Curiae. All parties admitted and accepted to the contents of the order.

SA No.336/2025

14.05.2026

In the result, SA No.336/2025 stands disposed in terms of comprise arrived between the parties. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated. No order as to cost.

¶48

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

¶49

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 14^th day of May, 2026)

¶50

SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY

¶51

Residential Property with land and building in Dharmapuri Registration District, Dharmapuri Joint 1 SRO, Dharmapuri Taluk, A.Reddihalli Village. Survey No 114, Sub Division S.No.114/1A2A, Dry Hес.0.48.0, Asst 1.98 & S.No 116, New Sub Division S.No.116/1A, Dry Hec.0.53.0, Asst 2.62, Plot No.38, Measuring an extent of 1662.50 sq.ft., and lying within the following boundaries:

¶52

North: Lands of Kuppammal & Others

¶53

South: 20 feet breadth Road,

¶54

East: Land of Parimala

¶55

West: House Site Plot No.31 of Kalaiselvi

¶56

In the midst,

¶57

East - West on Northern Side 36 feet

¶58

East - West on Southern Side 35 ½ feet,

¶59

North - South on both Sides 46½ feet,

SA No.336/2025

14.05.2026

In this Plot No.38 measuring 1662.50 sq.ft., with road right in 20 feet breadth which is leading from Dharmapuri - Hogenakkal road vide Doс No.2637/2010 dated 04.08.2010 and Other 20 feet Breadth road including mamool pathway, vehicle transportation right. This Property situated within the limits of Sogathur Panchayat, Dharmapuri Union.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

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

Rajalakshmi v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajalakshmi v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Laya Engineerings

Indian Bank versus Modern Ultra Solar Energy Ltd.

Ms Health Mushrooms versus Bank of Baroda

Dena Bank versus M/s Vinayaga Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Sangaranarayanan P

M Praveen Kumar versus City Union Bank Limited