Dismissed

V Bharathi v. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

DRT6 May 2026SA/361/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This distinction holds that an unpaid third-party bidder cannot set aside an auction where a counter-bid was declared highest. The Tribunal found no specific prejudice or illegalities by the Authorized Officer since the sale resulted in a successful transfer of property.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed.

V Bharathi versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

SA No.361/2024

06.05.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 06^th day of May, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 361 of 2024

¶9

V. Bharathi

¶10

Flat No:A, Pearl Enclave Door No.48, Barnaby Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

¶11

…Applicant

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

The Authorized Officer, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. No.27A, Developed Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶14

Mr. Ramalingam,

¶15

Door No.69/1, Bajanai Kovil Street, Kealayyampettai, Alliyabad, Kalambur (Post) Polur (Tk.)

¶16

Thiruvanamalai District, Tamilnadu – 606 603.

¶17

Mrs. Mahalakshmi R.

¶18

Door No.69/1, Bajanai Kovil Street, Kealayyampettai, Alliyabad, Kalambur (Post) Polur (Tk.)

¶19

Thiruvanamalai District, Tamilnadu – 606 603.

¶20

Mr. Chandrasekar V, Door No.69/1, Bajanai Kovil Street, Kealayyampettai, Alliyabad, Kalambur (Post) Polur (Tk.)

¶21

Thiruvanamalai District, Tamilnadu – 606 603.

¶22

Mrs. Dharani Annamalai, Door No.69/1, Bajanai Kovil Street, Kealayyampettai, Alliyabad, Kalambur (Post) Polur (Tk.)

¶23

Thiruvanamalai District, Tamilnadu – 606 603.

¶24

Uploaded in E-Drt on 06.05.2026 at 03:14 p.m

SA No.361/2024

06.05.2026

Mr. Dinesh Kumar, No.87, Gangai Amman Kovil Street, Servur, Arni – 632 009.

¶29

…Respondents

¶30

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶31

Counsel for Applicant : Malati J J Counsel for Respondent : Mr. E. Vijayaraghavan.

¶32

ORDER ON SA 361/2024

¶33

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed 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].

¶34

The applicant has challenged the Sale notice dated 24.05.2024 scheduling the sale to be held on 12.06.2024 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale notice is Rs.5,28,42,684/-.

¶35

3 The applicant is the 3^rd party who is one of the bidder for the property situated at Arumugam Street, First Street, Arnipalayam, Arni, Comprised in T.S.No.D/3, Block T.S.No.108 and 103 of Arni Village, Arni Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, the auction was successfully held on 12.06.2024. Further the respondent bank has published the Sale notice dated 24.05.2024 in New Indian Express dated 25.05.2024 for sale of 4 properties, the EMD amount and reserve price was not mentioned separately for each item of the property.

¶36

Uploaded in E-Drt on 06.05.2026 at 03:14 p.m

¶37

SA No.361/2024

¶38

3 06.05.2026

¶39

The respondent bank has submitted that reserve price for the item No.4 property is Rs.49,29,600 and EMD amount is Rs.4,92,960/-, further the applicant has paid the EMD amount to the 1^st respondent. The respondent at the time of auction on 12.06.2024 has dictated new terms which is not mentioned in the Sale notice dated 24.05.2024 publication in Newspaper. Further the applicant has participated in the auction and the minimum bid increment would be Rs.10,000/- and the applicant has made bid amount of Rs.57,00,000/- and the counter bid was Rs.57,10,000/-, hence the counter bid was declared as highest tender amount.

¶40

The action of the respondent and auction purchaser are illegal and arbitrary, the terms and conditions were not disclosed by the 1^st respondent that the bid is restricted only to three times. Further the auction was already fixed between 1^st respondent and 6^th respondent which is in violation of SARFAESI Act and Rules. In the grounds it is contended that the auction sale held on 12.06.2024 is not as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the Authorized officer has not followed the procedures in arbitrary manner and SIE Rules.

¶41

The Authorized officer has not detailed the reserve price and EMD amount for each item in the impugned sale notice and failed to disclose the number of times of bid increase. Further the Authorized officer has not stipulated the new Terms and Conditions in the paper publication of Sale notice dated 24.05.2024. Hence, the applicant prays to set aside the auction sale held on 12.06.2024 as null and void.

¶42

Uploaded in E-Drt on 06.05.2026 at 03:14 p.m

SA No.361/2024

06.05.2026

It is seen from the records that the respondent bank has filed vakalat on 08.08.2024 and failed to file any counter from 28.11.2024 to 24.04.2026, hence the chance for filing counter of respondent bank stands closed on 28.04.2026.

¶47

The Tribunal under Section 17(1) is to adjudicate the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act and the Tribunal under Section 17(5) of the Act is duty bound to dispose 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.

¶48

The applicant being a third party more specifically un successful bidder who had participated in the auction schedule on 12.06.2024 has failed to purchase the property as successful bidder. It is also an admitted fact that the sale is successfully held in favor of the counter bid for Rs.57,10,000/- as put forth by the applicant in the SA. Thus, it is evident that the sale is successfully held as per the Terms and Conditions of the sale, though the applicant has contended that the bank has initiated new Terms and Conditions and applicant has not specifically pointed out the Terms and conditions which has prejudiced to him and how he is aggrieved by such action of the secured creditor.

¶49

Further, the applicant being an unsuccessful bidder has not made out any illegality in the auction held or in the measures taken by the respondent bank. On the other hand, a mere statement of applicant that the Terms and

¶50

Uploaded in E-Drt on 06.05.2026 at 03:14 p.m

SA No.361/2024

06.05.2026

Conditions was altered is not sufficient to setting aside the auction sale held on 12.06.2024.

¶55

Resultantly the present SA dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

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

¶58

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 06^th day of May, 2026)

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶61

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Impugned Sale notice under Rule 8(5) % 9(1) of	A-1
	SARFAESI Act dated 24.05.2024
2.	Registration Form–Bid dated 11.06.2024	A-2

¶62

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶63

Item No.4:

¶64

All that piece and parcel of land measuring 1896 sq.ft., situated at Arumugam Street First Street, Arnipalayam, Arni, comprised in T.S.No.D/3, Block T.S.No.108 and 103 of Arni Village, Arni Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, with the following boundaries and measurements:

¶65

Uploaded in E-Drt on 06.05.2026 at 03:14 p.m

SA No.361/2024

06.05.2026

North of: Lane coming from Rajaji Street,

¶70

South of: Arumugam Street First Street,

¶71

East of: Pasupothy Mudaliar House,

¶72

West of: Saravanan House,

¶73

Measuring North to South on the East to West on the Eastern side: 79’ Northern side: 24’ Western side: 79’ Southern side: 40’ Total extent: 1896 sq.ft.,

¶74

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

¶75

Uploaded in E-Drt on 06.05.2026 at 03:14 p.m

V Bharathi v. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Bharathi v. Hinduja Leyland Finance 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

P Priyadharsini versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Mr SaiKrishnan versus Icici Bank Limited

Ksm Nirman Pvt. Ltd. versus Federal Bank

State Bank of India versus B Kalatharan

State Bank of India versus Dhatchanamoorthy

Bank of Baroda versus Pandiyan