Dismissed

Sivakumar v. Hdfc Bank

DRT5 May 2026SA/491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging a Section 14 order under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that Section 14 powers are ministerial and non-adjudicatory, referencing Supreme Court precedents, and noted that Section 14(3) bars further challenges to such orders.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interim order of 05.08.2024 vacated; pending interim applications disposed of.

Sivakumar versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.491/2024

05.05.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 05^th day of May, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 491 of 2024

¶9

Mr. Sivakumar, S/o. Narayanan, Manohari By Home Makers, Flat No. A-2, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.122, 7^th Street, Poompuhar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶10

…Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

HDFC Bank Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, No.760, First Floor, ITC Centre, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶13

…Respondent

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A.D. Adhithya, M. Pugazhandhi,

¶16

R. Kamalesh Kumar

¶17

ORDER ON SA 491/2024

¶18

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section

¶19

[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].

¶20

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11:22 a.m.

SA No.491/2024

05.05.2026

The applicant has challenged the Section 14 order dated 16.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.25925 of 2024 before the Ld. CMM, Egmore and the outstanding amount due as per Section 14 order is Rs.43,07,951/-.

¶25

It is seen from the records that the applicant had taken out notice as directed by the Tribunal on 05.08.2024 and AOS is filed on 21.10.2024 which reflects that the notice is ‘refused’ which is deemed service to the respondent bank on 09.08.2024 and the item delivered to the sender ie., applicant on 12.08.2024.

¶26

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent bank did not represent the matter from 21.10.2024 to 28.04.2026 and even as on 29.04.2026.

¶27

Sub-section (5) of S.17 prescribes the time-limit of sixty days within which an application made under S.17 is required to be disposed of. The proviso to this sub-section envisages extension of time, but the outer limit for adjudication of an application is four months. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the Act are both expeditious and effective. In the case on hand, the applicant filed the SA 491/2024 on 31.07.2024 challenging Section 14 Order dated 16.07.2024.

¶28

Now considering the challenge to Section 14 Order, it is appropriate to mention the declaration of The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments has held that the power of Designated Court under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, 2002 is ministerial and non- adjudicatory in nature and the process to be followed under Section

¶29

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11:22 a.m.

SA No.491/2024

05.05.2026

14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind.

¶34

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra has held that Court is only required to verify the affidavit of Secured Creditor filed in pursuance of the proviso to Section 14 and nothing more. The above Bombay High Court judgment has since been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶35

“Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the matter once all the requirements Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal”.

¶36

The Supreme Court in the judgment of Authorized Officer, Indian

¶37

Bank v D Visalakshi and other, has held that a Chief Judicial Magistrate

¶38

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11:22 a.m.

SA No.491/2024

05.05.2026

is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the Section 14 order dated 16.07.2024 in C.M.P. No.25925/2024 passed by Ld. CMM, Egmore is a valid Order.

¶43

Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act statuses that no action taken by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (or any officer authorized by them) under Section 14 can be challenged in court or before any other authority. This provision ensures that the authority of these officials in enforcing security interests is final and not subject to further review.

¶44

10. T hus, the Section 14 order dated 16.07.2024 in C.M.P. No.25925/2024 passed by Ld. CMM, Egmore is after due consideration of the application, affidavit in support of compliance of procedures along with documents is an execution Order issued where no adjudication is required. The Order is passed considering the due compliance of the provisions of the Section 14 [i-ix].

¶45

Admittedly, the applicant has complied with the interim order passed by this Tribunal dated 05.08.2024 and also filed a compliance memo stating that the applicant has paid Rs.4,40,000/- on 12.08.2024 and another 10% i.e., Rs.4,40,000/- paid on 10.09.2024. Hence, the applicant has complied the conditional order and same stood extended vide proceedings dated 27.02.2025.

¶46

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11:22 a.m.

SA No.491/2024

05.05.2026

Though the respondent bank as secured creditor has not assisted this Tribunal in adjudication of the SA, however the challenge to the present SA being Section 14 Order dated 16.07.2024 which does not require any adjudication process. Further the Order clearly reflects the issuance of Section 13[2] demand notice dated 11.05.2023 and the respondent bank has complied with Rule 3(1) of SIE Rules, the respondent bank has produced all the loan documents in the Section 14 application and after due perusal and verification of the same, Section 14 application came to be allowed vide Order dated 16.07.2024 which does not require any interference of this Tribunal.

¶51

For the forgoing reasons, SA stands dismissed. Interim Order granted on 05.08.2024 stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

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

¶54

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 05^th day of May, 2026)

¶55

ANNEXURES

¶56

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶57

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Order passed by the Chief Metropolitan	A-1
	Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.25925 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024.

¶58

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11:22 a.m.

SA No.491/2024

05.05.2026

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶63

All the piece and parcel of the property being a Residential Apartment bearing Flat No.A-2, in the second floor of the namely “Manohari Home Makers” measuring 1175 sq.ft., of built up area together (including common area) along with one designated and covered car parking on the South East side in Ground Floor, together with 589 sq.ft., of undivided share of land in and out of 2400 sq.ft., situated at plot No.122, 7^th Street,

¶64

Poompuhar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099, Kolathur Village, Purasaiwalkam Perambur Taluk, Chennai District, Comprised in S.Nos.46/2, T.S.No.112, Block No.19, C.A. No.1575/2010/2011 and TR/228/2010/2011 issued on 21.09.2010 by Thasildar Pursaiwalkam – Perambur Taluk, Chennai – 600 011.

¶65

Bounded on the:

¶66

North by: Plot No.11,

¶67

South by: 7^th Street, Poombugar Nagar (30 Feet Road)

¶68

East by: Plot No.124, Owner by C.A. Netto,

¶69

West by: Plot No.120, owned by C. Radhakrishnan

¶70

Measuring: