Allowed

Bothiramakrishnan v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT7 Jul 2026SA/352/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge DRT Chennai dismissed the application with prejudice. The Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002, applicant claimed no security interest and procedural lapses against the bank. The bank failed to file a counter-affidavit despite repeated opportunities. Relying on statutory timelines, the tribunal allowed setting aside the

What did the court decide?

Impugned Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 26.09.2022 and Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 09.05.2024 were set aside.

Bothiramakrishnan versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.352/2024

07.07.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 352 of 2024

¶8

Mr. S. Bothiramakrishnan S/o. J. Selvakumar TS No. 197/2-49, Door No. 43, Raja Kollai Street and, Bazzar Street, Trichy Road, Jayakondam Town, Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur – 612 901. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Gangai Konda Cholapuram Branch, 2/117, Trichy Chidambaram Road, Gangai Konda Cholapuram, Ariyalur District – 612 901. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. R. Kannan & K. Kannan

¶13

ORDER ON SA 352/2024

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 21.06.2024 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].

¶15

The applicant has challenged Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 09.05.2024 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession Notice is Rs.29,82,926.98/-

¶16

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 1.30 PM

SA No.352/2024

07.07.2026

The applicant is the guarantor and mortgagor to the loan availed by his father for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs as CC SME EASY facility and another sum of Rs.6 Lakhs as Housing Loan. The applicant executed all the loan documents and regularly repaying the loan without any default despite their difficulties and stringent situation. However, due to covid-19 pandemic, the applicant was not unable to repay the interest portion alone.

¶21

It is contended that there is no security interest for the respondent to enforce the security and same is also not registered in the central registry. Hence, the bank cannot proceed under the SARFAESI Act. However, the bank has issued the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice on 26.09.2022, calling upon the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.33,40,372.98 which was also followed by the issuance of possession notice dated 09.05.2024 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI act which is challenged in the present SA.

¶22

It is contended that the bank has charged heavy interest apart from the agreed interest and have capitalized the penal interest with the loan account which is against the legal pronouncement of the Apex Court and the RBI guidelines. The respondent bank has not produced any statement of accounts and applicant is willing to settle the liability.

¶23

In the grounds, it is alleged that the classification of the account as NPA is without any basis and devoid of the RBI norms and is not as per sec.2(o) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶24

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 1.30 PM

SA No.352/2024

07.07.2026

The sec.13(2) demand notice in not issued to all the parties and Sec.13(4) possession notice is not published in the two leading newspapers nor affixed on the property.

¶29

One these grounds, the applicant prays to set aside the Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 09.05.2024.

¶30

The respondent bank has come on record and filed the vakalath on 11.07.2024 but have not filed the counter from 08.01.2025, 01.04.2025, 24.07.2025, 13.04.2026 and 27.05.2026 as per record. Further, there is no representation for the respondent bank and they have not filed the counter in spite of sufficient opportunity given by the Tribunal.

¶31

The Tribunal under Section 17(1) is to adjudicate the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act and the Tribunal under S 17[5] the ACT is duty bound to dispose of the SA as expeditiously as possible within 60 days from the date of the application and total period of pendency of the application shall not exceed 04 months from the date of the application.

¶32

As the respondent bank has not come forward to counter all the allegations / averment in respect of the measures taken by the respondent bank under the Act, the present SA is only to be allowed setting aside the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 26.09.2022 and Sec.13(4) Possession notice dated 09.05.2024.

¶33

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 1.30 PM

SA No.352/2024

07.07.2026

For the foregoing reasons, the present SA is allowed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶38

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

¶39

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 07^th day of July, 2026)

¶40

ANNEXURES

¶41

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶42

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Impugned Possession Notice dated 09.05.2024.	A-1

¶43

DESCRIPTION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

¶44

All that part and parcel of land in Trichy District, Ariyalur District, Registry, Jayamkondam SRD, Udayarpalayam Taluk, and in same Village, in Bazzar street in Old Natham SF No. 197, New Natham SF No. 615/22, with RCC terraced building having door No. 43, 43A43D and a Pathway measuring East to West 4’ and North to South 28’ within the following four boundaries: South of the Raja Kollai Street, West of the shop building and backyard of veerappachettiar, East of the site purchased by selvakumar and north of Bazzar St and shop of veerappachettiar. The property stands in the name of Mr. J. Selvakumar, Mr. S. Bothiramakrishnan, Mr. S. Bharanidharan & Mrs. Durgadevi. Postal address of the property is Door No. 43, Raja Kollai Street and Bazzar Street, Trichy Road, Jayamkondan Town, Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur- 612901.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

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

¶47

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 1.30 PM

Bothiramakrishnan v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bothiramakrishnan v. Indian Overseas Bank

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

Punjab National Bank versus Raju

Canara Bank versus Red Sun International

Bank of Maharashtra versus Iyappan

State Bank of India versus Lakshmanan

Samsudeen versus Canara Bank

Dr.PrakashKarrun and Dr.Veena Singh versus Idbi Bank