Dismissed

Mr R Suresh Kumar v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT24 Apr 2026SA/492/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the bank's Sec.13(4) possession notice. Finding that the bank followed the required procedure under the SARFAESI Act, including issuing a Section 13(2) notice and complying with rules on service and public notice, the court upheld the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed. The interim order of stay (if any) stands vacated.

Mr R Suresh Kumar versus Karur Vysya Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.492/2022

24.04.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 24^th day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 492 of 2022

¶8

Mr.R.Suresh Kumar S/o Mr.Rajamanickam No.230D/7A, Renga Nagar, Mettu Street, Perambalur - 621 212.

¶9

Mrs.S.Anushya W/o Mr.Suresh Kumar No.230D/7A, Renga Nagar, Mettu Street, Perambalur - 621 212. ….Applicants

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd Perambalur Branch No.113-A, Venkatesapuram Trichy Main Road, Perambalur - 621 212. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A.S. Neela Narayani, B. Priyanka & M. Prem Kumar.

¶14

Counsel for respondent : M/s. A. Arun Babu

¶15

ORDER ON SA 492/2022

¶16

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 23.11.2022 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short

¶17

the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured

¶18

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 14:45 hours

SA No.492/2022

24.04.2026

creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶23

The applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 18.11.2022 and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.13(4) Possession Notice is Rs.1,05,03,652.69/-

¶24

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶25

The 1^st applicant is the borrower and 2^nd applicant is the co-borrower had availed two Happy Loan (HSL) of Rs.48.00 lakhs on 25.07.2017 and another Happy Loan (HSL) of Rs.59.50 lakhs on 25.07.2017. The 1^st applicant has mortgaged two items of the property which is described as item 1 and 2 in the Sec.13(4) possession notice in favor of respondent bank has secured assert.

¶26

The applicant has challenged the possession notice dated 18.11.2022 contending to be arbitrary unfair unreasonable and the respondent bank have invoked the SARFAESI Act without any intimation about the status of the loan account which is against the RBI guidelines.

¶27

The respondent bank has failed to give credit of subsidy amount and has claimed an exorbitant amount. It is contended that no Sec.13(2) demand notice was issued to the applicants and without issuing the 13(2) notice and have proceeded further in issuing the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice and have failed to obtained the valuation and have fixed the reserve price which is low below the market price.

¶28

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 14:45 hours

SA No.492/2022

24.04.2026

On these grounds, the applicant prays to set aside and quash the impugned possession notice dated 18.11.2022.

¶33

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶34

The respondent bank in their counter submits that the applicants are the borrower and the co-borrower have availed Happy loan (HSL) of Rs.48 Lakhs and Rs.59,50,000/- on 25.07.2017 and executed all the loan documents and the 1^st applicant had mortgaged the property at Perambalur (north) village as a security towards the credit facility. Since, the repayment were not proper the account is classified as NPA on 24.08.2022 and the bank has initiated the measures under the SARFAESI Act. The bank has issued the mandatory notice under Sec.13(2) demand notice dated 08.09.2022 claiming an outstanding amount of Rs.1,03,26,703.69p/due as on 25.08.2022 and (Comprising of Rs.45,50,236.14p/- towards HSL – 1625753000001271) and Rs.57,76,467.55p/towards HSL – 1625753000001299 is due and payable by the applicants.

¶35

The demand notice was duly served on the applicants and even after receipt of the Sec.13(2) demand notice, the applicants did not repay the amount , hence the bank has proceeded in taking the symbolic possession of the property by issuing the Sec.13(4) possession notice on 18.11.2022 which is also duly served on the applicants and is evidenced by proof of service.

¶36

The applicants had approached this Hon’ble Tribunal and obtained an order of stay and was trying to stall the recovery proceedings, however,

¶37

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 14:45 hours

SA No.492/2022

24.04.2026

the applicants did not comply with the conditional order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal and hence, the interim order of stay gets vacated automatically.

¶42

The Respondent bank denies 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.

¶43

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

¶44

It is an admitted fact that the 1^st applicant is the borrower and 2^nd applicant is the co-borrower have availed two Happy Loan (HSL) of Rs.48,00,000/- and Rs.59,50,000/- on 25.07.2017, which is secured by mortgagor of two items of the property owned by the 1^st applicant. In fact the applicants are borrowers and 1^st applicant is the mortgagor does not dispute the availing of the credit facility and the mortgage of the property. As the applicants defaulted in the repayment the bank has proceeded further after classifying the account as NPA on 24.08.2022.

¶45

Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued S.13(2) Demand Notice dated 08.09.2022, 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.

¶46

The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice is sent by RPAD which the applicants

¶47

have received the Demand Notice as per the Acknowledgement card

¶48

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 14:45 hours

SA No.492/2022

24.04.2026

produced at Pg.4 and 5 of counter. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice as the borrower and the guarantor did not liquate the liability within 60 days nor raised any objections to the demand made, hence the respondent bank has proceeded further under the Act.

¶53

The respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 18.11.2022 sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgment, which the applicants have received the Possession Notice as per the acknowledgement card produced at Pg.8 and 9. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The Hindu” and another one in Tamil “The Hindu” both dated 20.11.2022 and the Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.10 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶54

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 respondent bank has established the due compliance of 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 08.09.2022 and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 18.11.2022 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

¶55

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 14:45 hours

SA No.492/2022

24.04.2026

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.

¶60

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

¶61

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 24^th day of April, 2026)

¶62

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶63

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Possession Notice dated 18.11.2022.	A-1

¶64

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶65

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Demand Notice dated 08.09.2022.	R-1
2.	Demand Notice–Acknowledgement cards.	R-2
3.	Possession Notice dated 18.11.2022.	R-3
4.	Possession Notice–Acknowledgement cards.	R-4
5.	Possession Notice affixture–Photos.	R-5
6.	Possession Notice paper publication (English – The Hindu) dated 20.11.2022.	R-6
7.	Possession Notice paper Publication (Tamil – The Hindu) dated 20.11.2022.	R-7

¶66

SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY

¶67

(Details of Mortgaged property belonging to Mr. Sureshkumar. R)

¶68

Item No.1:

¶69

In Perambalur District, In Ariyalur Registration District, In perambalur Sub Registration District, In perambalur taluk, In perambalur (North) Village, Ayan Punjai Old SF.No.302/1C, Acre 1.03 Cents, UDR SF.No.168/1C Hec.0.41.50 Ares in which an extent of East West 40 Feet, North South 50 feet admeasuring an extent of 2000 square feet vacant site,

¶70

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 14:45 hours

SA No.492/2022

24.04.2026

Plot No.36 & 37 Southern side having the following four boundaries; North of : 20 feet width East West Street

¶75

West of : 20 feet width North South Street East of : Plot No.35,

¶76

South of : 10 Feet vacant land on the Northern side of Plot No.37 (Item No.2)

¶77

Item No.2:

¶78

In perambalur District, in ariyalur registration district, In perambalur sub registration district, in perambalur taluk, in perambalur (North) Village, Ayan Punjai S.F. No.302/1C, out of Acre 1.03 cents, UDR SF.No.168/1C Hec.0.41.50 Ares 0. An extent of East West 40 feet, North South 70 feet, admeasuring an extent of 2800 square feet vacant site Plot No.37 Northern Portion, Plot No.38 & 39 having the following four boundaries;

¶79

West of : 20 feet width North South Street,

¶80

East of : Plot No.35 belong to Mohamed Yousuf and Plot No.40, North of : Southern side portion of Plot No.37 (Item No.1),

¶81

South of : 20 Feet East West Street,

¶82

The above two items are clubbed together having total extent of 4800 square feet vacant site and the RCC roofed house building constructed in it, along with all its doors, windows, fittings, electric service connection number 06 331 019 1509 etc.,

¶83

The plots situates in Perambalur North Village for UDR. S.F.No.168/1C1A1, Hec.0.33.47 Ares stands in the name of Suresh Kumar and others in Patta No.204.

¶84

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

¶85

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 14:45 hours

Mr R Suresh Kumar v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr R Suresh Kumar v. Karur Vysya Bank

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

Indian Bank versus Mr D Kalaiselvam And Other

State Bank of India versus Mahesh Ayar Viswanathan

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Sri Saha Agencies

State Bank of India versus Sri P Sakthivel

Laksha Hospitals versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

State Bank of India versus The Opera International