Dismissed

Mr a Selvam v. Punjab National Bank

DRT1 Jan 2026SA/383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the sale notice of immovable property. The court held that the applicant's plea regarding the challenged notice became infructuous because the asset was already sold and a sale certificate issued, and prayers regarding other notices were not maintainable or adjudicated in pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the Sale Notice dated 28.11.2022 is dismissed; interim order is vacated; pending IAs are disposed of accordingly.

Mr a Selvam versus Punjab National Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 01^st day of January, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 383 of 2023

¶9

Mr. A. Selvam S/o. Mr. T. Angamuthu, S.No.55/2A and 55/2B, RB Nagar, Vijayanallur, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur, Chennai – 600 067. …Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Punjab National Bank K.K. Nagar Branch, Chennai – 78, Presently migrated ARM Branch PNB Towers, Royapettah, R.H. Road, Chennai – 600 014

¶12

M/s. A.K. Industries Trade name of its Proprietor Mr. S. Anbu, S/o Mr. Subramani, D.No.11, Venkatesh Nagar, Drivers Colony, Chennai – 600 072. …Defendants

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. N. Sivakumar Counsel for Respondent : M/s. J. Arun Prasad

¶15

ORDER ON SA 383 /2023

¶16

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

¶17

SA No.383/2023

¶18

2 01.01.2026

¶19

the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶20

The applicant has challenged the Sale Notice dated 28.11.2022 fixing the sale on 26.12.2022 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale notice is Rs.84,67,656.83/-

¶21

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶22

3.1 M/s. A.K. Industries the 2^nd respondent availed Term Loan for Rs.45,00,000/A/c No.2510001B00000719; Cash Credit for Rs.20,00,000/- A/c No.2510008700001561; Term Loan for Rs.10,00,000/A/c No.251000IB00000746; Term Loan for Rs.6,86,000/A/c No.251000IB00000807 and Term Loan for Rs.1,05,000/A/c

¶23

No.251000IA00000233 to which the applicant stood as guarantor.

¶24

3.2 The borrower M/s. A.K. Industries defaulted in the repayment resulting in classification of all the 5 loan accounts as NPA on 12.09.2019 followed by issuance of Demand Notice dated 05.11.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding a sum of Rs.57,12,664/- for the five loan accounts.

¶25

3.3 As per the 1^st respondent ‘s valuation report dated 08.02.2020, market value is Rs.1,44,00,000/-, Realizable value is Rs.1,29,60,000/- and Forced sale value is Rs.1,08,00,000/-. The outstanding amount due is per the account statement of 5 loan in the O.A.No.467 of 2020 which are as follows.

¶26

SA No.383/2023

¶27

3 01.01.2026

¶28

i. Rs.28,25,860.26/- in Term Loan A/c No.251000IB00000719

¶29

ii. Rs.17,99,759.09/- in Cash Credit A/c No.2510008700001561

¶30

iii. Rs.6,50,127/- in Term Loan A/c No.251000IB00000746 iv. Rs.3,64,948/- in Term Loan A/c No.251000IB00000807

¶31

v. Rs.1,05,000/- in Term Loan A/c No.251000IA00000233

¶32

3.4 It is contended that the 1^st respondent bank has issued Sale notice dated 28.11.2022 with a gap of 3 years and 23 days without issuing the Section 13(4) Possession Notice to the borrower and guarantor, symbolic possession of the property was never taken by the 1^st respondent.

¶33

3.5 The Sale notice was served to the applicant in person only on 21.12.2022 and the same was not affixed on the scheduled property. Further the Sale notice dated 28.11.2022 is not published in the leading newspapers of locality and the same was not published within 7 days from the date of notice.

¶34

3.6 Further the Sale notice dated 28.11.2022 was delivered to the 2^nd respondent on 03.12.2022 where the sale was to be held on 27.12.202, hence there is no clear 30 days sale notice issued to the borrower and guarantor. The schedule mentioned property is an agricultural land which is classified as Maanaavaari land in Patta No.585 which is not properly converted into non-agricultural, hence the property cannot be sold under SARFAESI Act.

¶35

3.7 The valuation report obtained by 1^st respondent is dated 08.02.2020 which has market value of Rs.1,44,00,000/-, Realizable value is

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

Rs.1,29,60,000/- and Forced sale value is Rs.1,08,00,000/-, however the 1^st respondent in their sale notice dated 28.11.2022 has fixed a reserve price of Rs.62,00,000/- which is defective in nature and failed to obtain the latest valuation report.

¶40

3.8 The total outstanding amount due Rs.84,67,656.83 in sale notice is mentioned without providing principle, interest and any other charges. It is submitted that the applicant had guaranteed only Loan Accounts Nos. 2510008700001561, 251000IB0000076 and 251000IB00000807 by personal guarantee and mortgaging the schedule property which the applicant has not guaranteed the Loan Accounts Nos. 251000IB00000719 and 251000IA0000023. In fact, the 1^st resondent has admitted the above fact in O.A.No.467 of 2020 that there are only 3 loan accounts have been guaranteed by the applicant and failed to admit in the present SA.

¶41

3.9 The applicant had executed two Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 29.07.2015 and 27.04.2016 to secure the repayment of loans availed, thus the respondent bank has selected only one Term Loan account out of many loan accounts against the MODTs executed. Hence the MODTs executed by the applicant are invalid.

¶42

3.10 The 1^st respondent bank failed to obtain daily stock, failed to conduct periodical physical verification of stocks, failed to set withdrawal limit on

¶43

the value of stocks and book debts, permitted to sell the hypothecated goods and book debts realization were not given credit to the loan account.

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

Hence the 1^st respondent has failed to comply with the Sanction letter dated 29.07.2015 and hypothecation agreement dated 29.07.2015.

¶48

3.11 The Term Loan was availed to buy the EOT crane and other items which was not purchased. Subsequently the primary security was neither created nor existed, then the 1^st respondent bank cannot hand over the schedule property based on the guarantee or mortgage security. Hence the applicant submits that he is not liable for the Term Loan availed by the 2^nd defendant.

¶49

3.12 Though the applicant has entered into contract of guarantee dated 29.07.2015 and 26.02.2016 which has been signed by the applicant blindly. Hence the agreements were executed in favor of bank and the same is illegal and against the public policy. The signature of 2^nd respondent in letter of confirmation for balance amount dues dated 06.05.2019 and 22.08.2019 are different from the signatures of other documents.

¶50

3.13 Further the Term loan of Rs.6,86,000/- and Rs.1,05,000/- were sanctioned by the 1^st respondent bank which the repayment of overdue was financed, thus it is contrary to RBI’s directives. The 1^st respondent vide letter dated 20.01.2022 requested for one time settlement which was accepted and the guarantee agreement dated 29.07.2015 and mortgage dated 27.04.2016 cannot be enforced as per the terms of the OTS. During

¶51

the pendency of OA No.467 of 2020, 1^st respondent has initiated measures, hence the applicant prays to set aside the Sale Notice dated 28.11.2022.

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶56

4.1 The 1^st respondent bank has filed a detailed counter inter alia contending that the averments made by the applicant are strictly denied. It is admitted by the applicant that the 2^nd respondent is the principal borrower and applicant is the guarantor who has mortgaged his property as security to the loan availed by the 2^nd respondent. The borrower and guarantor have failed to repay the loan amount as per the agreed terms to which the respondent bank has issued several recall letters.

¶57

4.2 In spite of recall letters, borrower and guarantor continued to default in the repayment schedule, hence the loan account is classified as NPA on 17.09.2019 as per the RBI guidelines. The 1^st respondent bank has issued Demand Notice dated 01.02.2021 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act to the borrower and guarantor through RPAD.

¶58

4.3 After the issuance of Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 01.02.2021, the borrower and guarantor failed to neither repay the entire due amount nor made any representation. Hence, the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Possession Notice dated 17.08.2021 under Section 13(4) and taken symbolic possession of the property. The Possession Notice was affixed on the conspicuous part of the property and sent to the borrower and guarantor through RPAD and also published in two Newspapers, one in English daily and another in Vernacular language. The applicant has also admitted the receipt of Possession Notice.

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

4.4 In fact the borrower ang guarantor are aware of the measures taken by 1^st respondent bank but failed to repay the entire due amount. The 1^st Respondent bank obtained a valuation report dated 27.08.2021 and issued sale notice dated 28.09.2021 scheduling the sale to be held on 28.10.2021 which was published in two Newspapers, one in English daily “Indian Express” and another in vernacular language “Dinamani”. The Sale notice is sent through RPAD which is received by the applicant. However, the auction did not take place on 28.10.2021 for want of bidders.

¶63

4.5 Even after the receipt of the sale notice, the borrower and guarantor failed to repay the entire due amount. The respondent bank has taken a fresh valuation report dated 24.11.2022 where it is seen that the property is not an agricultural property and the applicant failed to prove that agricultural activities are being carried on the property. The 1^st respondent bank has proceeded further and issued 2^nd Auction notice dated 28.11.2022 which is duly sent to the applicant through RPAD.

¶64

4.6 The Sale notice dated 28.11.2022 is duly published in two Newspapers, one in English daily “Indian Express” and another in Tamil daily “Dinamani” on 28.11.2022, the sale notice is also affixed on the conspicuous part of the property. The respondent bank has obtained a fresh valuation report dated 24.11.2022 before issuing the sale notice, hence the respondent bank has followed all the mandatory procedures. Subsequently the scheduled sale dated 27.12.2022 has not taken place for want of bidders.

¶65

SA No.383/2023

¶66

8 01.01.2026

¶67

4.7 Further the 1^st respondent bank has issued 3^rd sale notice dated 27.12.2022 fixing the auction on 18.01.2023 which is also duly sent through RPAD and also published in two Newspapers, one in English “Indian Express” and in Tamil “Dinamani” dated 28.12.2022 and is also affixed on the conspicuous part of the property.

¶68

4.8 The applicant filed W.P.No.3936 of 2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for a direction to the respondent bank to disclose the details of auction purchaser and the writ petition came to be disposed on 02.08.2023. After the disposal of writ petition, applicant failed to implead auction purchaser as a party. Subsequently the secured asset was sold to the highest bidders Mr. B. Naresh and Mrs. N. Devi for a sale consideration of Rs.63,00,000/-, further the sale certificate is also duly registered in favor of the highest bidders. Hence the 1^st respondent bank has complied all the procedures under the Act and prays for dismissal of the present SA.

¶69

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶70

5.1 It is discernible from the records that Ms. AK Industries represented by its Proprietor Mr. S. Anbu is the borrower who had availed financial credit facilities from the respondent bank and the applicant is the guarantor who stood as guarantee to the due repayments of the loan and also had mortgaged the property by Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 29.07.2015 towards the Term loan A/c No.251000IB00000746 and cash credit A/c No.2510008700001561 and 27.04.2016 towards the term

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

loan account of No.251000IB00000807 towards the repayments of the loan availed by 2^nd respondent.

¶75

5.2 In fact, the applicant does not dispute the creation of mortgage towards the loan and it is specific contention of the applicant that he has mortgaged the property as security only towards three loan and not towards 5 loan accounts. The said contention is supported by the applicant by producing the two MOTD dated 29.07.2015 and 27.04.2016 which clearly reflects the mortgage of applicants’ property towards the three loan accounts

¶76

i. Term loan A/c No.251000IB00000746

¶77

ii. Cash credit A/c No.2510008700001561

¶78

iii. Term loan A/c No.251000IB00000807

¶79

5.3 The second contention raised is that the property is an agricultural land as per the description of the mortgaged property “All that piece and parcel of agricultural land, classified as Maanavaari land, in the revenue records of the state government, admeasuring an extent of 15682 sq.ft., patta No.585, located at, No.113, comprised in S.No.55/2A and 55/2B, R B Nagar, Vijayanallur Village, Solavaram post, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District with structures thereon:

¶80

An whole property is bounded on

¶81

North by: Land settled to and in favor of Mr. Shankar

¶82

South by: Vacant lands

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

East by: Land comprised in S.No.58,

¶87

West by: Common pathway measuring 15 feet

¶88

And situated within the registration district of Chennai north and sub registration district of redhills.

¶89

5.4 Further the contention with regard to the property is a Agricultural land would not come to the aid of the applicant as the applicant has not produced any documents to evidence that agricultural activity is being carried out and this Tribunal relies on the K. SREEDHAR – vs-. M/S RAUS

¶90

CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS. has held that the burden is upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on.

¶91

5.5 Further the challenge to S.13[4] Possession notice dated 17.08.2021 is not within the period of 45 days as prescribed under S.17[]1 of the Act. However, the respondent bank has produced the affixture of S.13[4] Possession Notice dated 17.08.2021 at Page No.7 to 10 of respondent’s counter.

¶92

5.6 It is seen from the records that the present SA is filed on 23.12.2022 and the prayer as sought for in the SA is to set aside the Sale notice dated 28.11.2022 contending that there is no 30 days sale notice. It is pertinent to note that the present sale notice dated 28.11.2022 is the 2^nd sale notice

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

where it is not required to issue 30 days’ notice as per Rule 9[1] proviso which reads as under:

¶97

[(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower:

¶98

Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.

¶99

Hence the contention that there is no 30 days’ notice fails.

¶100

5.7 During the pendency of the SA, the applicant has filed an IA No.757/2023 to amend the prayer as “cancel and set aside the Sale notice dated 27.12.2022”. It is evident that the applicant had challenged the 2^nd sale notice dated 28.11.2022 and had sought for an amendment to “cancel and set aside the sale notice dated 27.12.2022” which is the 3^rd sale notice issued by the respondent bank, which is not impugned in the present SA.

¶101

5.8 The averments as made in the SA, it is seen that the applicant has not received the Demand notice and also submitted that the notices are sent to the wrong address and there was no publication of the sale notice

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

dated 28.11.2022 by the respondent bank. Further contention raised by the applicant that there is a misappropriation of valuation and referred to the valuation report dated 27.08.2021 and 24.11.2022.

¶106

5.9 Now the issue before this Tribunal is whether the challenge to the subsequent 3^rd sale notice dated 27.12.2022 be challenged in a pending SA where the prayer to set aside the 2^nd sale notice has become Infructuous?

¶107

5.10 Additionally the applicant has also filed an IA No.1127/2024 to implead the Auction purchasers i.e., Mr. Naresh and Mrs. V. Devi as the 3^rd and 4^th respondent to the sale held pursuant to 3^rd sale notice dated 27.12.2022 which is not impugned in the present SA and the challenge to 2^nd Sale notice dated 28.11.2022 which did not fructify. Hence the cause of action to implead the Auction purchasers as 3^rd and 4^th respondent who is the successful bidder in the present SA does not arise which cannot sustain and accordingly the IA No.1127/2024 fails and stands dismissed.

¶108

5.11 Further, the applicant has also filed an IA No.427/2024 to receive additional documents and Proof Affidavit of the respondent bank in TA No.40/2023. It is an admitted fact that the respondent bank has filed an TA No.40/2023 under RDB Act and has initiated measures under SARFAESI Act for enforcement of security. The reliance of POA filed in an TA would not assist the applicant in an appeal under Section 17(1) of the Act:

Section 17(1)

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may make an application alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:

¶114

Further the contention can be raised in OA.

¶115

5.12 Now considering the measures taken by the respondent bank in issuing the sale notice dated 28.11.2022, the respondent bank has issued sale notice dated 28.11.2022 which is duly sent to the applicant through RPAD. The Sale notice dated 28.11.2022 is duly published in two Newspapers, one in English daily “Indian Express” and another in Tamil daily “Dinamani” on 28.11.2022 as evident from the paper publications produced at Page No.77 and 78 of respondent’s counter.

¶116

5.13 The applicant had also invoked the jurisdiction in W.P.No.3936 to disclose the name of Auction purchasers which came to be dismissed on 02.08.2023. It is seen from the records that the present SA is challenging the 2^nd Sale notice dated 28.11.2022 scheduling the sale to be held on 26.11.2022 which did not materialize and the prayer as sought for in the SA is rendered as infructuous.

¶117

5.14 The prayer as sought for in the IA No.757/23 is to cancel and set aside the 3^rd Sale notice dated 27.12.2022 which is also not maintainable

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

as the challenge to the 3^rd Sale notice dated 27.12.2022 is challenged by the applicant in another SA No.412/2025 which is before this Tribunal.

¶122

5.15 In fact, the applicant has challenged the 3^rd sale notice dated 27.12.2022 where in the property is sold and the Sale certificate is also issued to the successful bidder on 16.02.2023. Hence all the contentions as raised by the applicant with regard to the 3^rd sale notice dated 27.12.2022 is to be adjudicated in SA No.421/2025 and the same cannot

¶123

be concluded in the SA where the measure and prayer as become infructuous.

¶124

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

¶125

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

¶126

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 01^st day of January, 2026)

¶127

ANNEXURES

¶128

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶129

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

1.	Application for micro, small & medium enterprises (MSME) for loans to 10 lakhs dated 04.09.2014	A-1
2.	1^stdefendant sanction letter dated 08.09.2014	A-2
3.	1^stdefendant’s sanction letter dated 08.09.2014	A-3
4.	2^nddefendant’s hypothecation of assets to secure term loan dated 08.09.2014	A-4
5.	2^nddefendant’s hypothecation of movable assets forming part of fixed/blocked assets dated 08.09.2014	A-5
6.	Letter by 2^nddefendant depositing 15 number of cheques dated 08.09.2014	A-6
7.	2^nddefendant’s application for micro, small, medium enterprises (MSME) for loans up to 100 lakhs dated 27.07.2015	A-7
8.	1^stdefendant’s sanction letter dated 29.07.2015	A-8
9.	2^nddefendant’s hypothecation of assets to secure term loan dated 29.07.2015	A-9
10.	2^nddefendant’s hypothecation of goods and book debts to secure cash credit facility dated 29.07.2015	A-10
11.	Applicant’s agreement to guarantee dated 29.07.2015	A-11
12.	Applicant’s memorandum of the deposit of title deeds registered as Doc.No.7370/2015 dated 29.07.2015	A-12
13.	Settlement deed dated 26.03.2010, registered as Doc.No.1984/2010, SRO, Redhills	A-13
13(a).	Patta No.585 in the name of applicant for mortgaged property	A-13(a)
14.	2^nddefendant request letter for extension of repayment period dated 11.02.2015	A-14
15.	Supplementary Term loan agreement between defendants dated 26.02.2016	A-15
16.	Supplementary Term loan agreement between defendants dated 26.02.2016	A-16
17.	Consent letter from guarantor/applicant dated 26.02.2016	A-17
18.	Supplementary term loan agreement for small loans between defendants dated 26.02.2016	A-18
19.	Agreement of guarantee between defendants dated 26.02.2016	A-19
20.	Applicant’s Memorandum of the deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.3612/2016, SRO Redhills dated 27.04.2016	A-20

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

21.	2^nddefendant’s letter of request for conversation of cash credit (CC) facility/rephasement of Term Loan (TL) dated 26.06.2016	A-21
22.	Renewal letter from the 2^nddefendant dated 30.01.2017	A-22
23.	2^nddefendant’s balance and security confirmation letter in respect of cash credit A/c No.2510001561 dated 30.01.2017	A-23
24.	2^nddefendant’s balance and security confirmation letter in respect of Term loan A/c No.251000IB00000807 dated 30.01.2017	A-24
25.	2^nddefendant’s balance and security confirmation letter in respect of Term loan A/c No.251000IB00000719 dated 30.01.2017	A-25
26.	2^nddefendant’s balance and security confirmation letter in respect of Term loan A/c No.251000IB00000746 dated 30.01.2017	A-26
27.	Balance and security confirmation letter in respect of Term loan A/c No.251000IB00000719, 251000IB00000746, 251000IB00000807 dated 06.05.2019	A-27
28.	Balance and security confirmation letter in respect of Cash credit A/c No.251000IB00001561, Term Loan A/c. No.251000IB00000233 dated 22.08.2019	A-28
29.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 10.05.2018	A-29
30.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 10.05.2018	A-30
31.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 10.05.2018	A-31
32.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 13.06.2018	A-32
33.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 13.06.2018	A-33
34.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 13.06.2018	A-34
35.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 13.08.2018	A-35
36.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 13.08.2018	A-36
37.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 13.08.2018	A-37
38.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 14.09.2018	A-38
39.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 14.09.2018	A-39

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

40.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 14.09.2018	A-40
41.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 11.03.2019	A-41
42.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 23.05.2019	A-42
43.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 14.01.2019	A-43
44.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 14.01.2019	A-44
45.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 14.01.2019	A-45
46.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 11.03.2019	A-46
47.	1^stdefendant’s remainder letter dated 23.05.2019	A-47
48.	Recall notice sent by the 1^stdefendant to applicant and 2^nddefendant dated 17.09.2019	A-48
49.	Demand Notice U/s. 13(2) issued by 1^st defendant to applicant and 2^nddefendant dated 05.11.2019	A-49
50.	Paper publication in English daily regarding possession notice issued by 1^stdefendant dated 03.01.2020	A-50
51.	Statement of account in respect of A/c No.25100087000001561	A-51
52.	Statement of account in respect of A/c No.251000IB00000807 in the books of 1^st defendant	A-52
53.	Statement of account in respect of A/c No.251000IB00000719 in the books of 1^st defendant	A-53
54.	Statement of account in respect of A/c No.251000IB00000746 in the books of 1^st defendant	A-54
55.	Statement of account in respect of A/c No.251000IB00000233 in the books of 1^st defendant	A-55
56.	Certificates under Section 2(A)(c), 2(A)(b), 2(A)(a) of the bankers books and evidence Act 1891	A-56
57.	Valuation report of item no.1 schedule property dated 08.02.2020	A-57
58.	Power of attorney	A-58
59.	OA No.467 of 2020 filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act by 1^stdefendant dated 14.07.2020	A-59

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

60.	1^stdefendant’s affidavit in OA No.467 of 2020 dated 14.07.2020	A-60
61.	OTS Notice – Loan account No.251000IB0000746 for Rs.8,65,508/- dated 20.01.2022	A-61
62.	OTS Notice – Loan account No.25100IB00000807 for Rs.4,85,872/- dated 20.01.2022	A-62
63.	OTS Notice – Loan account No.25100IB00000233 for Rs.1,40,684/- dated 20.01.2022	A-63
64.	Written statement filed by applicant in said OA No.467 of 2020 dated 03.06.2022	A-64
65.	Affidavit of applicant to said written statement filed in OA No.467 of 2020 dated 03.06.2022	A-65
66.	Sale notice issued by 1^stdefendant to 2^nd defendant dated 28.11.2022	A-66
67.	Registered Post Tracking–RT075949669IN	A-67

¶146

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶147

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Copy of the Demand Notice dated 01.02.2021	R-1
2.	Acknowledgement card/postal track/returned cover	R-2
3.	Copy of the Possession Notice along with Postal receipts dated 17.08.2021	R-3
4.	Affixture of Possession Notice at schedule mentioned property – photographs dated 17.08.2021	R-4
5.	Copy of the valuation report dated 27.08.2021	R-5
6.	Copy of the cersai certificate	R-6
7.	1^stE auction sale notice and published in the English and Tamil Daily dated 28.09.2021	R-7
8.	Copy of the Valuation report dated 24.11.2022	R-8
9.	2^ndE Auction sale notice along with postal receipts dated 28.11.2022	R-9
10.	Acknowledgment card and returned covers of 2^nd e auction sale notice dated 28.11.2022	R-10
11.	2^ndE Auction Sale notice published in English daily “The New Indian Express” and Tamil daily “Dinamani”dated 28.11.2022	R-11
12.	3^rdE Auction sale notice along with postal receipts and returned cover/acknowledgment card dated 27.12.2022	R-12

SA No.383/2023

01.01.2026

13.	Photographs – Affixture of sale notice dated 27.12.2022	R-13
14.	3^rdE Auction sale notice published in English daily “The New Indian Express” dated 28.12.2022	R-14
15.	3^rdE Auction sale notice published in Tamil daily “Dinamani”dated 28.12.2022	R-15
16.	Sale certificate issued by the 1^strespondent bank to infavor of the auction purchasers dated 16.02.2023	R-16
17.	Copy of the order passed in W.P.No.3936/2023 by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras dated 02.08.2023	R-17

¶152

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶153

All that piece and parcel of agricultural loan, classified as Maanaavaari land, in the revenue records of the state government, admeasuring an extent of 15682 Sq.Ft., Patta No.585, located at, No.113, comprised in S.No.55/2A and 55/2B, R B Nagar, Vijayanallur Village, Solavaram post, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District with structures thereon And whole property is bounded on

¶154

North by : land settled to and in favour of Mr. Shankar

¶155

South by : Vacant lands

¶156

East by : Land comprised in S.No.58 West by : common pathway measuring 15 feet

¶157

And situated within the registration district of Chennai north and sub registration district of redhills.

¶158

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

Mr a Selvam v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr a Selvam v. Punjab National Bank

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 E Indhumathi

City Union Bank Limited versus Mathusa Agencies

Nisar Ahemad versus Indian Bank

Prudent Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus M/s Appollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.

Federal Bank versus Manojkumar S

City Union Bank Limited versus S P Enterprises