Dismissed

Mrs a H Fathima Nasira v. Union Bank of India

DRT4 Mar 2026SA/454/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the applicant challenged a Section 13(4) Possession Notice and the calculated outstanding dues issued by Union Bank of India. The applicant alleged procedural irregularities, non-service of notice, and calculation errors regarding previous deposits and interest debits. The Tribunal examined the records, acknowledged the applicant's default, and found the bank ha

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed. The challenged Demand Notice and Possession Notice were held valid. The applicant's interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Mrs a H Fathima Nasira versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 454 of 2023

¶8

Mrs. A.H.Fathima Nasira, W/o. Rafi Mohammed, Flat B4, Rajparis Iswaryam, No.6A, Ranjith Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai - 600 085. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, No.9, Elcanso Complex, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Vigneshwar Elango, Varsha.V, Agathian J Pandian, Devi Dharshini.M.

¶13

Counsel for respondent : M/s. E. Maharajan, R. Mukesh kannah

¶14

ORDER ON SA 454/2023

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 05.08.2023 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].

¶16

The applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 13.07.2023 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession Notice is Rs.44,69,055.29/-

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶21

The Applicant along with her brother Mr. Mohamed Abdullah A.H. and sister-in law, Mrs. Abdul Subhan Fairose, availed home loan for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- vide Loan A/ c no. 56063100744454 in the year 2003, from Corporation Bank for purchase of residential flat measuring 1355 Sq.Ft. in No.B-4, 4th floor, Rajparis Ishwaryam, 5/10 Ranjith Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 085 described in the schedule together with 276 Sq. ft., of undivided share of land.

¶22

3.1 As per the credit sanction intimation dated 18.12.2003, the loan has to be repaid in 240 EMI's of Rs.19,629/- and Mr. Mohamed Abdullah A.H. and Mrs. Abdul Subhan Fairose had settled the property absolutely in Applicants favor vide settlement deed dated 15.06.2015 registered as Doc. No 1661 of 2015 on the file of SRO - Adyar.

¶23

3.2 Owing to certain financial difficulties and non-payment of monthly instalments, the loan account of the Applicant was declared as NPA. The Applicant had given a OTS request on 17.07.2020 to the Corporation bank for a sum of Rs.28,00,000/ against the total outstanding of Rs.36,00,000/which was not approved by the bank and in the interregnum Corporation bank came to be merged with Union Bank of India, the Respondent herein.

¶24

3.3 On 10.09.2020, the Applicant had requested Respondent to regularize the account and it was orally informed to the Applicant that the account will be regularized only upon deposit of Rs.26,51,000/-. In order to give a quietest to the issue and to regularize the account, the Applicant

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

had remitted a sum of Rs.26,51,000/- on 12.10.2020 with the Respondent bank to the loan account.

¶29

3.4 The applicant’s request for OTS several times was not considered despite applicant depositing almost 70% of the loan amount. On 31.12.2020, a sum of Rs.7,76,661/- was wrongly debited to the account of the Applicant. Hence, Applicant made a complaint on 06.03.2021 to the RBI citing the irregularity and the wrong debit. The RBI vide reply dated 23.04.2021 informed the Applicant that the Respondent has admitted their lapse and are in process of reversal of excess interest.

¶30

3.5 However, till date the irregularity is not rectified by the Respondent despite the Applicants repeated reminders and Applicant had once again with the intention to settle the issue given an OTS offer on 22.09.2022, for which there was no reply.

¶31

3.6 The Applicant was delivered a possession notice dated 13.07.2023 under 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act based on a Demand notice dated 31.07.2020 claiming an a sum of Rs.44,69,055/-, and paper publication was also effected on 13.07.2023 without serving Demand notice.

¶32

3.7 The respondent bank has filed an Application in T.A.No.1231 of 2023 where the Applicant was set ex-parte on 28.04.2022, to which applicant has taken out an application in Diary No. 3510 of 2023 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order to the Applicant.

¶33

3.8 The alleged Demand Notice dated 31.07.2020 was never served on the Applicant which suffers from irregularities, as the demand amount of

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

Rs.44,69,055/- is calculated without deducting the deposit of Rs.26,51,000 / - made by the Applicant and wrong interest debit of Rs.7,76,000/- made in the Applicants account.

¶38

3.9 The Applicant sought information of the outstanding balance and the bank gave one pager Transaction inquiry report which reflects the outstanding as on 19.07.2022 is Rs.24,28,577 /- contrary to the Demand of UBI is an exorbitant sum of Rs.44,69,055/-.

¶39

3.10 In the grounds, it is contented that the Sec.13(2) Demand notice dated 31.07.2020 is not served to the Applicant and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice is issued based on a unserved demand notice issued before 3 years. Further, the impugned Possession notice is issued based on Demand Notice dated 31.07.2020 which does not factor the deposit of Rs.26,51,000/made by the Applicant. The wrong debit as admitted by the Respondent is also included in the demand notice. Moreover, in consonance to the outstanding statement given by the Respondent, the outstanding as on 19.07.2022 is Rs.24,28,577/-. Thus, all action or acts taken in furtherance therewith are liable to set aside.

¶40

3.11 The Respondent failed to give the proper details regarding the actual outstanding due, further the action of the Respondent bank would only show that the bank is not interested in recovering the outstanding dues, rather more inclined in harassing the applicants and dispossessing them from their dwelling house.

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

3.12 It is contended that the bank has not complied with the mandatory structure of Appendix IV of SIE Rules, as contemplated under Rule 8(1). The possession notice has not followed the mandatory provision of law laid down the Rule 8 of SIE Rules. One these grounds, the applicant prays to set aside the Possession Notice dated 13.07.2023.

¶45

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶46

The applicant along with her brother Abdul Hadi Mohammed Abdullah & her sister in law Abdul Subhan Fairose availed Home Loan for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- from the erstwhile Corporation Bank for the purchase of the petition schedule property. Subsequently, Abdul Hadi Mohammed Abdullah & Abdul Subhan Fairose settled the petition schedule property in favour of the applicant. The applicant had created equitable mortgage by way Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 20.09.2017 registered as Doc.No.2468/2017 on the file of the SRO, Adyar, and mortgaged her property as collateral security, in favour of the respondent bank.

¶47

4.1 The applicant is not regular in making repayment and committed default and has submitted a OTS request on 17.07.2020 to the Corporation bank for a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- against the total outstanding of Rs.36,00,000/-, which the respondent did not approve the OTS. Further the erstwhile Corporation Bank got merged with Union Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2020 and hence the applicant gave OTS request on 17.07.2020 to the Corporation Bank.

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

4.2 Admittedly the applicant had availed loan from the respondent bank a sum of Rs.7,76,661/- debited on 31.12.2020 is charge of deficit interest which the applicant is bound to pay and with the intention to settle the issue the applicant gave an OTS offer on 22.09.2022 and there was no reply from the respondent.

¶52

4.3 The applicant defaulted in repayment of the loan with interest and committed willful default. Despite repeated requests made by the bank the applicant has not repaid the loans outstanding, the loan account has been classified as NPA on 24.10.2016 as per the norms and RBI guidelines. Therefore the respondent bank issued Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 31.07.2020 which was duly served on the applicant and other borrowers.

¶53

4.4 Even after the receipt of the demand notice, the applicant and other borrowers failed to make payment within the stipulated time of 60 days as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 13.07.2023 to the applicant and other borrowers, the said notice was duly received by the applicant and the notices sent to the other borrowers were returned with an endorsement "Unclaimed". Further the respondent bank published the Possession Notice in two leading newspapers, and it was also affixed in a conspicuous place on the same date as contemplated under the Act.

¶54

4.5 The applicant had deposited more than 70% of the loan outstanding in 2020 and sought for regularization and respondent is not even disclosing

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

the amount due as on date to the applicant is denied. The Demand Notice dated 31.07.2020 as well as the Possession Notice dated 13.07.2023 would clearly show the loan outstanding due of the applicant and further it is open for the applicant to access statement of account through internet banking and other sources.

¶59

4.6 As the applicant had committed default and the account was classified as NPA, the respondent had initiated T.A.No.1231 of 2023 for the recovery of the loan outstanding from the applicant and the applicant to prove that the application filed to set aside the ex parte order.

¶60

4.7 The is contended that the demand notice suffers irregularities as the same is calculated without deducting the deposit made by the applicant and wrong interest debit made in the applicant's account is contrary to applicant own pleadings the alleged sum of Rs.26,51,000/- was made by the applicant on 12.10.2020, now we are in 2024, the total outstanding of the applicant as per the demand notice and possession notice is Rs.44,69,055.29/- as on 26.07.2020. Further the debit claimed as wrong was made on 31.12.2020 and Demand Notice was issued on 31.07.2020 much earlier than the same, hence there is no irregularity in the demand notice as well as possession notice.

¶61

4.8 The applicant had approached the respondent seeking outstanding balance of the loan amount of Rs.44,69,055/- is exorbitant while the outstanding amount as on 19.07.2022 was Rs.24,28,577/- as per the

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

document given by this respondent. Further denies that the act with malafides and abuse of principles of natural justice and fair play.

¶66

4.9 The applicant has committed default in repayment of the amounts due to the bank, the loan account has been classified as NPA on 24.10.2016. Hence the respondent bank issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) on 31.07.2020, the Demand notice was duly served on the applicant and other borrowers. Even after the receipt of the demand notice the applicant and other borrowers failed to make payment within the stipulated time of 60 days, hence the respondent bank issued Possession Notice dated 13.07.2023 to the applicant and other borrowers, and notice was duly received by the applicant and the notices sent to the other borrowers were returned with an endorsement "Unclaimed".

¶67

4.10 Subsequently the Possession Notice was affixed in the petition premises by the Authorized Officer of the bank, further the respondent bank published the Possession Notice in two newspapers one in Tamil “Dhinamani” and another one in English “New Indian Express” both dated 19.07.2023 as contemplated under the Act.

¶68

4.11 The bank denies all the allegations in the SA as Sec.13(2) Demand Notice and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice is duly served on the applicant and the action is taken by the respondent under the Act are perfectly legal and as per the procedures.

¶69

4.12 It is seen that the Hon'ble court has directed the applicant to deposit another 10% of the total outstanding within 4 weeks from order dated

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

12.10.2023 being 09.11.2023. The applicant has failed to make payment within the said date, had paid the second installment only on 20.11.2023.

¶74

4.13 It is pertinent to note that since the applicant has not come forward to settle the outstanding payable to the respondent bank even after the receipt of the Possession Notice, the respondent bank took symbolic possession of the property and brought the same for public auction vide Sale Notice dated 20.09.2023. As per the Sale Notice the auction was scheduled to be held on 27.10.2023 at 11.00 AM. Due to the intervention of this Hon'ble Tribunal the sale has not taken place.

¶75

4.14 The Respondent bank denies all the allegations made in the present SA and as the respondent have followed all the procedures in accordance with act, prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶76

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of

¶77

the case

¶78

It is manifest from the records that the applicant along with her brother Abdul Hadi Mohammed Abdullah & her sister in law Abdul Subhan Fairose availed Home Loan for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- vide A/c.No.560631001744454 in the year 2003, from the (erstwhile Corporation Bank) for the purchase of the petition schedule property.

¶79

5.1 To secure the credit facilities availed, applicant has executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 20.09.2017 vide Doc.No.2468 of 2017 which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Adyar, which is produced at Pg.12-18 of counter.

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

5.2 The applicant admitting the liability has given a OTS request on 17.07.2020 to the Corporation bank for a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- against the total outstanding of Rs.36,00,000/- which the respondent did not approve the OTS. The contention that the account will be regularized upon deposit of Rs.26,51,000/- is contrary to documents and the applicant has failed to produce any documents issued from respondent about such an instructions The respondent clarified that sum of Rs.7,76,661/- debited on 31.12.2020 is charge of deficit interest with the applicant is bound to pay.

¶84

5.3 In fact the applicant does not dispute the availing of the facilities and the mortgage of the property including the default in the repayment. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 24.10.2016 in accordance with RBI guidelines.

¶85

5.4 Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued S.13(2) Demand Notice dated 31.07.2020, where the notice clearly describes the types of loan availed, the nature of facility and the documents executed by the borrowers. Further the description of the properties is clearly mentioned in the S.13(2) demand notice.

¶86

5.5 The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice is sent by RPAD which the applicant and other borrowers have received the Demand Notice as per the Acknowledgement card produced at Pg.22-24 of counter. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice as the borrower and the guarantor did not liquated the liability within the period of 60 days and nor raised any objections to the demand made.

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

5.6 The respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 13.07.2023 and the notice is sent by RPAD which the applicant have received the Possession notice as per the Acknowledgement Card produced at Pg.31 and 32, and the notice to other borrowers which returned with postal endorsement as “unclaimed” which was sent in the name of (Abdul Hadi Mohammed Abdullah and Abdul Subhan Fairose) which is produced at pg.27-30 of counter. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 19.07.2023 and affixture of Possession Notice produced at Pg.33 of counter, evidences due service of Possession Notice.

¶91

5.7 The applicant had committed default and the account was classified as NPA on 24.10.2016. The respondent had initiated T.A.No.1231 of 2023 for the recovery of the loan outstanding from the applicant.

¶92

5.8 The contention that the demand notice suffers irregularities as the same is calculated without deducting the deposit made by the applicant and wrong interest debit made in the applicant's account cannot sustain. It is clear that the payments made by the applicant is given credit and after classification of account as NPA, bank has initiated measures. Further the said contention is not supported by any documents to establish the irregularity in debiting the payment made.

¶93

5.9 The further contention that amount claimed in demand and possession notices is exorbitant also cannot sustain as the demand notice claiming an amount of Rs.44,69,055.29/- is issued on 31.07.2020 and the

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

possession notice dated 13.07.2023 the outstanding amount is Rs.44,69,055.29/- to be noted that even from her own pleadings the alleged sum of was made by the applicant on, now we are in 2024, the total outstanding of the applicant as per the demand notice and possession notice is Rs.44,69,055.29/- as on 26.07.2020. Further the debt claimed as wrong was made on 31.12.2020 and Demand Notice was issued on 31.07.2020 much earlier than the same, hence there is no irregularity in the demand notice as well as possession notice.

¶98

5.10 It is seen that the Tribunal has directed the applicant to deposit another 10% of the total outstanding within 4 weeks from order dated 12.10.2023 being 09.11.2023, which the applicant paid belatedly on 20.11.2023.

¶99

5.11 It is seen from the records that respondent bank took symbolic possession of the property and brought the same for public auction vide Sale Notice dated 20.09.2023. As per the Sale Notice the auction was scheduled to be held on 27.10.2023 at 11.00 AM, and the sale has not taken place. The Sale Notice issued by the respondent which is issued A.D. Card & Returned covers produced at Pg.36-41 and Sale Notice published in two newspapers one in the English “ The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dhinamani” both dated 24.09.2023.

¶100

5.12 Though the applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) possession notice have not pointed out any illegalities in the measure taken by the bank in enforcing the security available to them. On the other hand, the

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

respondent bank have established the procedures as contemplated under the Act in enforcing the security with supporting documents as required under the Act. Hence it is concluded that the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 31.07.2020 and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 13.07.2023 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

¶105

5.13 For the foregoing reasons, 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. Sd/-

¶106

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

¶107

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 04^th day of March, 2026)

¶108

ANNEXURES

¶109

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶110

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Credit Sanction Intimation dated 18.12.2003.	A-1
2.	Settlement Deed dated 15.06.2015.	A-2
3.	Letter sent to respondent dated 17.07.2020.	A-3
4.	Complaint Mail sent to RBI dated 05.03.2021.	A-4
5.	Mail sent by RBI dated 23.04.2021.	A-5
6.	Account Statement dated Oct 2016-Dec 2021.	A-6
7.	Transaction Inquiry dated 19.07.2022.	A-7
8.	Impugned Possession Notice dated 13.07.2023.	A-8
9.	Paper Publication dated 13.07.2023.	A-9

¶111

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶112

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 20.09.2017.	R-1
2.	Demand Notice along with A.D. Cards dated 31.07.2020.	R-2

SA No.454/2023

04.03.2026

3.	Possession Notice Returned Covers dat	alon ed 1	g with 3.07.202	A.D. Card & 3.	R-3
4.	Photograph showing Notice.	the	affixture	of Possession	R-4
5.	Paper Publication 19.07.2023.	in	Tamil	Daily dated	R-5
6.	Paper Publication 19.07.2023.	in	English	Daily dated	R-6
7.	Sale Notice issued b A.D. Card & Returne	y the d Co	respond vers date	ent along with d 20.09.2023.	R-7
8.	Paper Publication 24.09.2023.	in	Tamil	Daily dated	R-8
9.	Paper Publication 24.09.2023.	in	English	Daily dated	R-9

¶117

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶118

All that piece and parcel of land in the extent of 6 grounds and 1467 sq.ft., or thereabout, situated at Flat No.B-4, 4^th floor measuring 1355 sq.ft., in Rajparis Ishwaryam, 5/10 Ranjith Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 085 comprised in Town Survey No.5/10, Block No.15 of Adyar Village, Mambalam –Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, with UDS of 276 Sq.ft., /15687 sq.ft.,

¶119

Bounded on the,

¶120

North by -40 Feet Wide Road, South by - Property of Dr. Roy East by - Property of BN. Swami West by -20 Feet Wide Ranjit Road,

¶121

Situated within the registration district of south Chennai and subregistration District of Adyar.

¶122

Sd/-

¶123

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

Mrs a H Fathima Nasira v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs a H Fathima Nasira v. Union Bank of India

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

Muruganandham versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

J Charles versus Bank of Baroda

M Velan versus Piramal Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

V Multipackz versus Indian Overseas Bank

I Manoharan versus Indian Bank

S Srinivasan versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited