Disposed

Jayalakshmi v. Sasvitha Home Finance Limited

DRT20 Jul 2026SA/351/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held that the objection regarding the maintainability of the Section 17(1) application based on limitation cannot be decided at the threshold due to disputed questions of fact regarding notice and knowledge.

What did the court decide?

Directs registry to number the application and directs that the issue of limitation be decided along with the merits based on evidence produced by both parties.

Jayalakshmi versus Sasvitha Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 20^th day of July, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY Presiding Officer

¶4

NDN(SA) No.147 of 2026

¶5

Mrs. Jayalakshmi Wife of Mr. Iyyanar No.2/101, West Part Colony Ariyur-Senganankollai Village Thirukoilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District … Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s The Sasvitha Home Finance Limited Represented by its Authorized Officer Registered office at 1^st Floor, Old No.488 New No.540, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai – 600 035

¶8

Kallakurichi Branch Office at No.8, Salem Main Road Kallakurichi District … Respondent

¶9

ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY

¶10

This case is placed before the Bench for hearing on the question of

¶11

maintainability.

¶12

“ Registry sought for clarification regarding the SA filed with delay of 78 days. Hence COD petition along with fee has to be filed.

¶13

Whereas Counsel for the Applicant stated that:

¶14

The applicant came to know about the said order only on 19.01.2026. Immediately thereafter the applicant approached the jurisdiction and counsel and applied for certified copies of the said order along with relevant petitions before the Ld. CJM on 20.01.2026 and the same were obtained on 21.1.2026. Hence, the present SA is filed by the applicants before this

¶15

¶16

Hon’ble Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation 45 days from the date of knowledge on 19.1.2026 as contemplated u/s 17(1) of the said Act.”

¶17

The case was taken up initially on 11.2.2026. After hearing the parties

¶18

and after perusing the entire records, this Tribunal passed the following order:-

¶19

“ Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P.A. 18157 of 2022 in the matter of M/s Deecon India Pvt. Ltd., & Ors. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors” and submitted that the SA has been filed within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge.

¶20

Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act provides that any person aggrieved by the measures referred to in Section 13(4) may prefer an application within 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken.

¶21

The expression “from the date on which such measure had been taken” has been judicially interpreted in appropriate cases to mean the date on which the aggrieved person had knowledge of such measure, especially where it is shown that the person was not served or had no prior notice.

¶22

In the present case, the Applicant specifically pleads that knowledge of the impugned action was gained only on 19.01.2026 and that the S.A. has been filed within 45 days therefrom. Whether the Applicant indeed had no earlier knowledge and whether the Respondent had duly effected service are matters requiring adjudication upon pleadings and materials to be placed on record by both sides.

¶23

At this stage, in the absence of reply and records from the Respondent, this Tribunal cannot conclusively determine that the S.A. is barred by limitation. The plea of limitation raised by the Registry involves disputed questions of fact and therefore cannot be decided at the threshold. Accordingly, the question whether the S.A. is within limitation or whether any delay requires condonation is kept open for consideration after filing of reply.

¶24

Put up this case on 16.03.2026 for reply of the respondent and further proceedings.”

¶25

¶26

Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent

¶27

The Respondent filed its detailed counter on maintainability vide Dy. No.3921 of 2026 dated 16.6.2026. It is contended therein that the present SA filed by the applicant is not maintainable either on merits or as per law and is liable to dismissed. It is stated that the respondent has scrupulously followed the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder while initiating action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also stated that the applicant had been informed / intimated at every requisite stages and were duly notified on all occasions, however, the applicant never came forward to make good the default committed by him against the loan account in question.

¶28

The present SA has been filed only with an intention delay the recovery process initiation by the Respondent Financial Institution. It is stated that the Respondent is a registered financial institution with RBI and engaged in the business of providing financial assistance and has been inter alia authorized to carry on the business of finance.

¶29

It is stated that the applicant and Mr. Thirunavukkarasu along with Mr. Iyyanar and Mrs. Krishnaveni on 15.03.2021 approached the respondent for grant of loan against property and considering the said request the respondent sanctioned a loan of Rs.12,30,680/- on 22.06.2021 and the applicant along with others executed loan and security documents. It is also stated that they created security interest

¶30

¶31

over the schedule property in favour of respondent by depositing Original Settlement Deed No.4132 of 2020 with the respondent and also executed Regd. Simple Mortgage Deed No.2637 of 2021. It is further stated that in view of the default, the loan account was classified as NPA on 27.12.2022 strictly in accordance with the guidelines of RBI. It is stated that the respondent invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 1.6.2024 followed by possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act on 31.8.2024. It is stated that the applicant did not raised any objection to the demand notice under Section 13(3A) of the Act. It is stated that the possession notice is duly served, affixed on the secured asset and published in two newspapers as mandated under law. It is stated that the applicant having knowledge of the action taken by the respondent did not come forward to clear the dues, hence the respondent proceeded under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and obtained an order from the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi in Crl. M.P. No.2384 of 2025 dated 30.09.2025.

¶32

It is stated that the grounds raised by the applicant are totally false and an after thought as the respondent has fully complied with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶33

It is also stated that this Tribunal is not vested with any power to extend

¶34

the period of limitation and referred to the judgment of P.K.

¶35

¶36

Ramachandra Vs. State of Kerala reported in (1997) 7 SCC 566 and CELIR LLP Vs. Bafna Motors reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1. Thus contending the respondent prayed for dismissing the SA as not maintainable.

¶37

This Tribunal has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶38

Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act provides that any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) may approach the Tribunal within forty-five days from the date on which such measure has been taken.

¶39

The objection raised by the Registry is that the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14. The applicant, however, disputes such assumption and specifically asserts that he became aware of the order only on 19.01.2026.

¶40

It is well settled that where a party alleges absence of notice or want of knowledge of the impugned measure, the question as to when the cause of action arose becomes a mixed question of law and fact. The burden initially lies upon the applicant to establish that he had no prior knowledge of the impugned proceedings, whereas the respondent may establish due service by producing the relevant records.

¶41

¶42

In the present case, the respondent has asserted in the counter affidavit that notices were duly served and statutory formalities complied with, no material has been placed before this Tribunal conclusively demonstrating that the order passed under Section 14 or the consequential proceedings were actually served upon the applicant before 19.01.2026.

¶43

Therefore, this Tribunal cannot, at this stage, record a positive finding that the applicant had no knowledge prior to 19.01.2026 solely on the basis of the averments made in the S.A. Such issue can be finally determined only upon appreciation of evidence and the documents that may be produced during the adjudication of the S.A.

¶44

In the facts of the present case, the plea regarding limitation is inextricably connected with the disputed question whether the applicant had earlier knowledge of the measures taken under the Act and whether due service of the proceedings was effected. Such issue cannot be conclusively decided as a preliminary objection without adjudication of the evidence that may be placed by the parties.

¶45

Consequently, this Tribunal holds that the objection regarding maintainability on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained at this stage.

¶46

In view of the foregoing, the following:

¶47

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(a) In the interest of justice, registry is directed to the number the SA, leaving open the question of limitation to be decided at the time of passing final orders, if the same is otherwise found to be in order.

¶50

(b) The respondent is at liberty to establish during the final hearing, by producing the relevant records, that the applicant had prior knowledge of the impugned proceedings and that the S.A. is barred by limitation. Correspondingly, the applicant shall also be entitled to establish that he acquired knowledge only on 19.01.2026.

¶51

(c) The issue of limitation shall accordingly be decided along with the merits of the S.A. on the basis of the evidence and records produced by the parties.

¶52

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶53

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 20^th day of July, 2026)

¶54

Jayalakshmi v. Sasvitha Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalakshmi v. Sasvitha Home Finance Limited

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

State Bank of India versus Prathyusha Resources Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s. Sri Bharath Logistics

Ahamed Thambi Maideen versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Ramesh

Venu S versus Punjab National Bank

M/s.Sri Vigneshwara Coir Industries versus Bank of Baroda