Dismissed

P C Krishnakumari v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT28 Jul 2026SA/356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a Chief Judicial Magistrate's order authorizing physical possession of secured assets. The court found the bank strictly adhered to SARFAESI Act procedures after loan defaults, noting the applicant failed to prove any case against the enforcement measures.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with no costs; order of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI Act upheld.

P C Krishnakumari versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI DATED THIS 28^TH DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶4

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No. 356/2024

¶6

Mrs. P.C. Krishnakumari Proprietrix:

¶7

M/s Gopal Soda Company

¶8

No. 3/37A, Alavilai Veedu

¶9

Melaimulluvilai, S.T. Mangadu Post Kanyakumari – 629 122

¶10

….. Applicant

¶11

¶12

The Authorised Officer Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. Padanthalmoodu Branch No. 17/92, Trivandrum Main Road Kanyakumari District – 629 163

¶13

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager Padanthalmoodu Branch No. 17/92, Trivandrum Main Road Kanyakumari District – 629 163

¶14

The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kanyakumari District At Nagercoil

¶15

…... Defendants

¶16

Appearance of Advocates:

¶17

¶18

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶19

M/s M.R. Sreenivasan ---- Counsel for the Applicant Mr. P. Pethu Rajesh ---- Counsel for the Defendant Banks (3^rd Defendant is non other than Ld. CJM, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil)

¶20

This Application was heard in the presence of M/s M.R. Sreenivasan, Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. P. Pethu Rajesh, Counsel for the Defendant Banks in the aforesaid case and upon hearing the arguments of both sides Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1. This Application has been filed under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with a prayer to set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil passed in Crl. M.P. No. 3458 of 2024 dated 29.04.2024 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶23

2. The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicant are as follows:-

¶24

A. It is submitted that the Applicant was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of soda under the name and style of M/s. Gopal Soda Company , a proprietary concern. For the purpose of developing her business, the Applicant approached the 2nd Defendant Bank and availed an Overdraft facility of Rs.12,50,000/- on 29.07.2021. In connection with the said loan transaction, the Applicant and her husband executed the necessary loan documents, and her husband stood as guarantor for the due repayment of

¶25

¶26

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶27

the loan. The schedule-mentioned property belonging to the Applicant was offered as collateral security. At the time of sanction of the loan, the Defendants obtained the signatures of the Applicant and her husband on several pre-filled forms and blank papers without disclosing the purpose for which the same would be used.

¶28

B. It is submitted that the Applicant was initially regular and prompt in repaying the loan. In view of the satisfactory performance of her business, the 2nd Defendant sanctioned an additional Overdraft facility of Rs.2,50,000/on 15.03.2022. However, due to severe financial difficulties arising from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and circumstances beyond her control, the Applicant suffered substantial business losses, resulting in irregularity in repayment of the loan. Thereafter, the Defendants classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 27.07.2023, allegedly without following the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, and initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

¶29

C. It is submitted that the 1st Defendant claims to have issued a Demand Notice dated 01.09.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding a sum of Rs.18,34,003/-. The Applicant denies receipt of the said notice and puts the Defendants to strict proof regarding its due service upon the Applicant and the guarantor.

¶30

D. It is submitted that thereafter the 1st Defendant issued a Possession Notice dated 08.12.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and took symbolic possession of the schedule-mentioned property in a hurried and arbitrary manner.

¶31

E. It is submitted that the 1st Defendant thereafter issued a Sale Notice dated 01.03.2024 fixing the auction sale on 28.03.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant filed S.A. No.227 of 2024 before this Hon'ble Tribunal. By order

¶32

¶33

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶34

dated 26.03.2024, this Hon'ble Tribunal granted interim stay subject to payment of Rs.8,50,000/- in two instalments. Owing to severe financial constraints, the Applicant could not comply with the conditional order, and consequently the interim stay stood vacated automatically.

¶35

F. It is submitted that thereafter the 1st Defendant filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, arrayed as the 3rd Defendant herein, in Crl.M.P. No.3458 of 2024 seeking assistance for taking physical possession of the secured asset. By order dated 29.04.2024, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appointed Ms. M. Deepa, Advocate, as Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the schedule-mentioned property and hand over the same to the 1st Defendant. The Applicant came to know of the said proceedings only when the Advocate Commissioner visited the property to execute the warrant.

¶36

G. Thereafter, the Applicant obtained a copy of the order from the official website of the concerned Court. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.3458 of 2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Applicant has preferred the present Securitisation Application on the following, among other, grounds.

¶37

GROUNDS OF APPLICATION

¶38

a) The order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.3458 of 2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the entire measures initiated by the 1st Defendant under the SARFAESI Act are arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, and therefore liable to be set aside.

¶39

¶40

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶41

b) The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order without properly verifying the records, documents and statutory compliance required under Section 14 of the Act.

¶42

c) The application under Section 14 was not supported by the affidavit of the Authorised Officer as mandated under law and as laid down by the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.12789 of 2016, United Bank of India Vs District Collector, Madurai . Hence, the order is liable to be set aside.

¶43

d) The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order mechanically and without proper application of mind. The Court failed to verify the particulars, identity and nature of the secured asset before issuing directions for taking physical possession.

¶44

e) The impugned order was passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶45

f) The Defendants failed to mention the correct and updated outstanding amount in the application filed under Section 14 of the Act.

¶46

g) The Defendants failed to follow the statutory provisions, Rules and judicial directions governing proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶47

h) The impugned order was passed without notice to the Applicant and without affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

¶48

i) The Defendants failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶49

¶50

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶51

j) The Defendants illegally classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset without adhering to the Reserve Bank of India guidelines or providing the Applicant an opportunity to regularise the account.

¶52

k) The Defendants are put to strict proof regarding the due service of the Demand Notice upon the Applicant.

¶53

l) The Defendants failed to publish the Possession Notice in two leading newspapers having wide circulation within the prescribed period, failed to affix the notice on the secured asset, failed to serve the same upon all concerned parties through the prescribed modes including electronic mode, and the Possession Notice was not issued by a duly authorised officer as required under the Act.

¶54

m) At the time of sanction of the loan, the Defendants obtained the signatures of the Applicant and her husband on several pre-filled forms and blank papers without disclosing their purpose. The Applicant reasonably apprehends that such signed documents may have been misused.

¶55

n) The 2nd Defendant failed to register the security interest with the Central Registry as required under Section 20 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶56

o) The person who issued the Demand Notice and Possession Notice and who initiated proceedings under Section 14 was not an Authorised Officer as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act.

¶57

p) The interest charged by the 2nd Defendant is contrary to the applicable Reserve Bank of India guidelines, and the payments made by the Applicant have not been properly appropriated and credited to the loan account.

¶58

q) While classifying the account as NPA and initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the Defendants failed to consider the extraordinary financial

¶59

¶60

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶61

hardship caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the nationwide lockdowns, and the relevant circulars and relief measures issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Finance.

¶62

r) The Authorised Officer performs quasi-judicial functions under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the Authorised Officer ought to act independently and strictly comply with the statutory safeguards while initiating proceedings against the secured assets of the borrower and guarantor.

¶63

DESCRIPTION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

¶64

All the parts and parcel of land to an extent of 10.00 cents in Re.Sy. Nos. 184/2 & 184/3 at Arudesam Revenue Village, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District and commercial and residential buildings constructed thereat standing in the name of Mrs. P.C. Krishnakumari, W/o Mr. G. Mangalnath.

¶65

Boundaries :

¶66

North : Property of Subin and Leela Bai South : Property of Selvan East : 10 feet wide road and property of Sunil West : Property of Davidraj

¶67

List of Documents filed by the Applicant:

¶68

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	08.12.2023	Possession Notice u/s13(4)
2.	01.03.2024	SaleNotice
3.	26.03.2024	Order of this Hon’ble Tribunal in SA No. 227/2024
4.	29.04.2024	Impugned order under Section 14passed by the 3^rd defendant

¶69

¶70

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶71

3. On the other hand, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant banks appeared and filed Reply Statement along with typed set and Additional typed set of papers wherein it has been submitted that the applicant availed a Housing Loan for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) and Over draft facility of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) by executing necessary agreements and thereby agreeing for the Terms and Condition stated in it.

¶72

It is submitted that the 1st and 2nd Defendant Banks are represented by their Chief Manager and Authorized Officer. The Defendant Bank denies all the averments contained in Paragraphs and Grounds of the application filed by the Applicant, except those specifically admitted herein.

¶73

It is submitted that the Applicant, Mrs. P.C. Krishnakumari, availed a Housing Loan under Loan Account No. 099700950100174 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) by executing the necessary loan documents and agreeing to the terms and conditions of the Defendant Bank. The said loan facility was sanctioned on 05.08.2022.

¶74

It is further submitted that the Applicant, as Proprietrix of Gopal Soda Company, also availed an Overdraft Facility under Account No. 099700050900227 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) by executing the necessary loan documents and agreeing to the terms and conditions governing the said facility. The said credit facility was sanctioned on 15.03.2022.

¶75

For the aforesaid credit facilities, the Applicant mortgaged the schedule-mentioned property in favour of the Defendant Bank by executing a Registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, which was duly registered as a document on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Munchirai.

¶76

¶77

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶78

It is submitted that, after availing both the aforesaid credit facilities, the Applicant failed to service the loan accounts and continuously remained in default. The Applicant failed to repay the loan amounts for a considerable period. Consequently, the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 27.07.2023 within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act, in accordance with the directions and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

¶79

It is submitted that, pursuant to the classification of the Housing Loan Account as a Non-Performing Asset, the Defendant Bank issued a statutory Demand Notice dated 01.09.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, calling upon the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs.18,34,003/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs thirty four thousand three only) outstanding as on 31.08.2023 within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the notice, together with future interest from 01.09.2023.

¶80

The said Demand Notice was returned unserved. Thereafter, a paper publication of the Demand Notice was made in “The Hindu” (English Daily) and “Dina Thanthi” (Tamil Daily) on 05.10.2023. The Demand Notice was also affixed on the mortgaged property on 08.12.2023.

¶81

Since the Applicant neither responded to the Demand Notice nor discharged the outstanding dues, the Defendant Bank issued a Possession Notice dated 08.12.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, calling upon the Applicant to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.19,12,928/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs twelve thousand nine hundred twenty eight only) as on 30.11.2023 together with future interest.

¶82

The Possession Notice was also returned unserved. Thereafter, the Possession Notice was published in “Dina Thanthi” (Tamil Daily) and “The Hindu” (English Daily) on 12.12.2023 in compliance with the

¶83

¶84

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶85

provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The Possession Notice was also affixed on the mortgaged property on 08.12.2023. By virtue of the issuance of the Possession Notice and the consequential paper publication, symbolic possession of the schedule-mentioned property vested with the Defendant Bank.

¶86

It is submitted that, in respect of the Overdraft Facility availed by the Applicant, the Defendant Bank issued a statutory Demand Notice dated 01.09.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, calling upon the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs.15,51,197/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs fifty one thousand one hundred ninety seven only) outstanding as on 31.08.2023 within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the notice, together with future interest from 01.09.2023.

¶87

The said Demand Notice was returned unserved. Thereafter, the Demand Notice was published in “The Hindu” (English Daily) and “Dina Thanthi” (Tamil Daily) on 05.10.2023. The Demand Notice was also affixed on the mortgaged property on 01.09.2023.

¶88

The Applicant neither responded to the Demand Notice nor repaid the outstanding dues. Consequently, the Defendant Bank issued a Possession Notice dated 08.12.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, calling upon the Applicant to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.16,45,809/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs forty five thousand eight hundred nine only) together with future interest as on 30.11.2023.

¶89

The Possession Notice was returned unserved. Thereafter, the Possession Notice was published in “Dina Thanthi” (Tamil Daily) and “The Hindu” (English Daily) on 12.12.2023 in compliance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The Possession Notice was also affixed on the mortgaged property on 08.12.2023. By virtue of the issuance of

¶90

¶91

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶92

the Possession Notice and the consequential paper publication, symbolic possession of the schedule-mentioned property vested with the Defendant Bank.

¶93

Documents filed by the Defendants:

¶94

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	01.09.2023	Demand Notice issued for the Account No. 099700950100174 returned cover	Loan with
2.	05.10.2023	Photograph showing the affixture Demand Notice for the Loan Accou 099700950100174	of the nt No.
3.	08.12.2023	Possession Notice issued for the Account No. 099700950100174 returned cover	Loan with
4.	08.12.2023	Photograph showing the Affixture Possession Notice in Loan Accou 099700950100174	of the nt No.
5.	01.09.2023	Demand Notice issued for the Account No. 099700950900227 returned cover	Loan with
6.	05.10.2023	Photograph showing the affixture Demand Notice for the Loan Accou 099700950900227	of the nt No.
7.	08.12.2023	Possession Notice issued for the Account No. 099700950900227 returned cover	Loan with
8.	08.12.2023	Photograph showing the Affixture Possession Notice in Loan Accou 099700950900227	of the nt No.
9.	05.10.2023	Paper Publication for the Demand for both the Loan Account 099700950100174& 09970095090	Notice No. 0227
10.	12.12.2024	Paper Publication for the Poss Notice for both the Loan Accoun 099700950100174& 09970095090	ession t No. 0227

¶95

¶96

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶97

11.	05.10.2023	Photograph showing the affixture of the Demand Notice for both the unit (Gopal Soda andPCKrishna Kumari.
12.	-	Photographs showing break open of the
		property
13.	-	Demand draft copy

¶98

4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGSTHE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:-

¶99

WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO GET THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR?

¶100

5 . Having heard the parties and after going through the entire documents available on the records, this Tribunal find that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the availment of loan facilities. In this case, I find that the Applicant has availed Housing Loan for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/(Rupees twenty lakhs only) which was sanctioned on 05.08.2022 and an overdraft for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) was also sanctioned on 15.03.2022 by the 2^nd Defendant Bank and her husband stood as guarantors for the due repayment of the loan and the applicant mortgaged the schedule mentioned property to the Defendant Bank through a Registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed and the same came to be registered as a document on the file of the Sub Registrar - Munchirai. It is stated by the Applicant that she was regular in repayment loan dues but due to heavy financial problems and heavy loss in her business, she could not repay the loan amount properly.

¶101

Hence the 1st Defendant Bank classified the Applicant's loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 27.07.2023. Thereafter, the Bank issued separate Demand Notices dated 01.09.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act in respect of both loan accounts, demanding a sum of

¶102

¶103

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶104

Rs.18,34,003/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand and Three only) towards the Housing Loan and Rs.15,51,197/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty-One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety-Seven only) towards the Overdraft Loan. Subsequently, the 1st Defendant Bank issued separate Possession Notices dated 08.12.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in respect of both loan accounts, demanding a sum of Rs.19,12,928/(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Eight only) towards the Housing Loan and Rs.16,03,541/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty-One only) towards the Overdraft Loan. Thereafter, the 1st Defendant Bank obtained an order dated 29.04.2024 in Cr.M.P. No.3458 of 2024 from the 3rd Defendant for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Aggrieved by the aforesaid measures initiated by the 1st Defendant Bank under the SARFAESI Act, the Applicant has filed the present S.A. No.356 of 2024.

¶105

6. On the other hand, the Defendant Bank has denied the Applicant's contention that she was regular in the repayment of the loan. It is the specific case of the 1st Defendant Bank that, upon the Applicant's default in repayment of the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs), separate Demand Notices dated 01.09.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act were issued in respect of both loan accounts. The Demand Notice pertaining to the Housing Loan demanded a sum of Rs.18,34,003/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand and Three only), while the Demand Notice relating to the Overdraft Loan demanded a sum of Rs.15,51,197/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty-One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety-Seven only). The said notices were sent to the Borrower and the Guarantor by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD). However, the notices were returned to the 1st Defendant Bank undelivered. I perused the documents produced by the 1st Defendant Bank. I find that the Bank has filed a copy of the Demand Notice relating to the Housing Loan ( annexed at pages 01 to 03 of the Bank's

¶106

¶107

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶108

typed set of papers) along with the returned undelivered postal envelope (annexed at pages 04 to 09 of the Bank's typed set of papers) . Likewise, in respect of the Overdraft Loan, the Bank has produced a copy of the Demand Notice (annexed at pages 20 to 22 of the Bank's typed set of papers) together with the returned undelivered postal envelope (annexed at pages 23 to 28 of the Bank's typed set of papers) . Further, I find that the Applicant neither sent any reply to the Demand Notices under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act nor made any representation to the 1st Defendant Bank in respect of either of the loan accounts. Further, I find that the 1st Defendant Bank has published the Demand Notices in two leading newspapers, namely, " The Hindu " (English) and " Dina Thanthi " (Tamil) (annexed at pages 39 to 42 of the Bank's typed set of papers) . I further find that the Demand Notices were affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset. The 1st Defendant Bank has also produced photographs evidencing the affixture of the Demand Notices on the conspicuous part of the secured property (annexed at pages 10 and 29 of the Bank's typed set of papers) .

¶109

7. Thereafter, the 1st Defendant Bank issued a separate Possession Notices dated 08.12.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in respect of both loan accounts. The Possession Notice pertaining to the Housing Loan demanded a sum of Rs.19,12,928/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Eight only), while the Possession Notice relating to the Overdraft Loan demanded a sum of Rs.16,03,541/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty One only). The said notices were sent to the Borrower and the Guarantor by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD). However, the notices were returned to the 1st Defendant Bank undelivered. I also perused the documents produced by the 1st Defendant Bank and I find that the Bank has filed a copy of the Possession Notice relating to the Housing Loan ( annexed at page 11 of the Bank's typed

¶110

¶111

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶112

set of papers) along with the returned undelivered postal envelope (annexed at pages 12 to 17 of the Bank's typed set of papers) . Likewise, in respect of the Overdraft Loan, the Bank has produced a copy of the Possession Notice (annexed at page 30 of the Bank's typed set of papers) together with the returned undelivered postal envelope (annexed at pages 31 to 36 of the Bank's typed set of papers) . Further, I find that the 1st Defendant Bank has published the Possession Notices in two leading newspapers, namely, " The Hindu " (English) and " Dina Thanthi " (Tamil) (annexed at pages 43 to 46 of the Bank's typed set of papers) . I further find that the Possession Notices were affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset. In support of such affixture, the 1st Defendant Bank has also produced photographs evidencing the affixture of the Possession Notices on the conspicuous part of the secured property (annexed at pages 18, 19 & 37, 38 of the Bank's typed set of papers) .

¶113

8. Thereafter, the 1st Defendant Bank obtained the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the 3^rd Defendant in Cr.M.P. No. 3458/2024 for taking physical possession of the secured asset. However, the Applicant was unaware of the said order. Challenging the same, the Applicant has filed the present SARFAESI Application. In the present case, it has already been observed that the 1st Defendant Bank has strictly complied with the procedures prescribed under the SARFAESI Act while issuing the Demand Notice and Possession Notice. Hence, the order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset is sustainable in the eye of law.

¶114

9. In view of the above discussion, I find that the 1st Defendant Bank has proceeded under the SARFAESI Act and Rules for recovery of the loan amount from the Applicants and he has strictly followed the procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

¶115

¶116

S.A. No. 356/2024

¶117

10. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered view that Applicant has failed to prove his case.

¶118

In the result, SA No. 356/2024 stands dismissed with no costs.

¶119

(Dictated to KKN taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 28^th July, 2026).

¶120

Sd/(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶121

Uploaded on 04.08.2026

¶122

P C Krishnakumari v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P C Krishnakumari v. Tamilnad Mercantile 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

S Shanthi versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Mrs Infomatique Systems

E Theresiamma versus Indian Bank

Karur Vysya Bank versus Kannan S

V Subbiah versus City Union Bank Limited

V Subbiah versus City Union Bank Limited