Dismissed

M s Paterson Cancer Center P Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT16 Mar 2026SA/503/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's security application challenging a Section 14 possession order. The Tribunal held that Section 14 measures remain valid even after asset sale, such orders are ministerial and non-adjudicatory, and subsequent interims regarding sales were barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

Application to set aside Section 14 order dismissed; Interim applications barred by limitation and disposed of.

M s Paterson Cancer Center P Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 503 of 2022

¶8

M/s. Paterson Cancer Centre (P) Ltd., Rep. Its Managing Director Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan No.175, N.S.K.Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024

¶9

…Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank, The Asset Recovery Management Branch, No.763. Anna Salai, Central Office, Chennai - 600 002. …Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B. Natarajan Counsel for respondent : M/s. Ananda Gomathy

¶14

ORDER ON SA 503/2022

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 05.12.2022

¶16

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].

¶17

The applicant has challenged the Sec.14 order dated 04.11.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.47 of 2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.17,75,15,599.23/-.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

Pleadings of the applicant.

¶22

The applicant is a renewed Oncologist well known for service and goodwill intended to construct a cancer Hospital approached the respondent bank for funds to purchase land and for construction of hospital.

¶23

3.1 The respondent bank vide letter dated 05.12.2011 sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.12,75,70,000/- towards purchase of medical equipment’s; Term Loan of Rs.8,97,45,000/- as sub-limit towards letter of credit for import of medical equipment and Term Loan of Rs.16,55,65,000/- towards purchase of Land Item 1 of Schedule of property. The property in Item 2 of schedule of property was given as security for the Term loan sanctioned by the Respondent.

¶24

3.2 The Term Loan of Rs.16,55,65,000/- was sanctioned for purchase of Item No.1 property mortgaged by third party who had availed loan from the respondent which was classified as NPA.

¶25

3.3 It is contended that the Respondent had mis-represented and induced the Applicant to purchase the NPA property claiming that the extent of land was 8.84 grounds, but the actual extent of land was only 7.77 grounds, hence the Respondent vide revised credit sanction letter dated 16-03-2012, reduced the extent from 8.84 grounds to 7.7 grounds.

¶26

3.4 Subsequent to purchase of the property Applicant faced difficulties in taking possession from erstwhile owners of the property due to pending litigations towards land acquisitions by Tamil Nadu Housing Board and National Highways Authority of India and could not obtain CMDA approval

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

for a long time which delayed the construction of the hospital building and adversely affected the business of the Applicant.

¶31

3.5 Though the Respondent had sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.16,55,65,000/- for purchase and construction of hospital building, but disbursed only Rs.10,81,00,000/- towards purchase of the property.

¶32

3.6 After the Applicant succeeding in land acquisition proceedings, obtained CMDA approval for construction of the Hospital building, approached the Respondent bank requesting to release and disburse the balance Term loan for the construction of the building and for purchase of necessary medical equipment’s.

¶33

3.7 The Respondent classified the account as NPA though Applicant had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000 towards interest and without any valid reason declared the loan account of the Applicant as NPA, issued Notice under S.13(2) of SARFAESI followed by Notice under S.13(4) and refused to release and disburse the balance loan amount which was already sanctioned vide letters dated 05-12-2011 and 16-03-2012.

¶34

3.8 The Applicant immediately approached the Tribunal and Tribunal directed the Respondent to consider the One Time Settlement. Accordingly, the Applicant immediately sent an OTS proposal dated 10-03-2021 offering to pay a total sum of Rs.9.85 Crores as One Time Settlement and paid an initial OTS sum of Rs. 01 crore out of the Total OTS amount of Rs.9.85 Crores on 31-03-2021.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

3.9 The Respondent bank vide OTS sanction letter dated 22-04-2021 directed the Applicant to pay the balance OTS amount of Rs.8.85 Crores within a period of 3 months by selling the schedule property.

¶39

3.10 Due to the imposition of total lock down from 05-05-2021 in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Applicant was unable to sell the schedule property since even the Sub-Registrar Offices were closed. Though lock down was partially lifted in stages there was difficulty in approaching the SubRegistrar Offices since only limited number of tokens were issued for registration and applicant was unable to raise funds by selling the property.

¶40

3.11 The Applicant had paid a sum of Rs. One Crore on 31-03-2021 and a further sum of Rs.90 Lakhs on various dates and sent several letters explaining the delay in paying the balance OTS amount of Rs.8.20 crores, requested for waiver of time of 3 months to pay the balance OTS amount of Rs.8.20 crores.

¶41

3.12 The Respondent vide letter dated 10-08-2022 issued an "Out of Court Settlement (OCS) Sanction" directing the Applicant to pay the sum of Rs.9.00 Crores within 90 days as full and final settlement which the Applicant paid the full and final sum of Rs.9.00 Crores by way of Out of Court Settlement on 26-08-2022 and the Respondent issued "No Due Certificate' dated 29-09-2022 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.9.00 Crores intimating the settlement under One Time Settlement Scheme of the bank.

¶42

3.13 The respondent obtained an “order withdrawing attachment” dated

¶43

09.11.2022 from the Hon’ble DRT-III, Chennai which is communicated to

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

the applicant. The Applicant was shocked and surprised to find that only the Item 1 of schedule of property had been mentioned in the "Order withdrawing attachment" dated 09-11-2022.

¶48

3.14 The Applicant was further shocked and surprised when an Advocate Dhuriyan pasted a notice dated 24-11-2022 giving two day notice under S.14 order dated 04-11-2022 in Crl.MP No.47 of 2022 passed by Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur appointing One Mr.A.Adithya, as Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property in Item 2 of schedule of property.

¶49

3.15 The Order dated 04-11-2022 in Crl MP No.47 of 2022 by Hon'ble CJM, Tiruvallur to take physical possession of the property in Item 2 of schedule of property is an error apparent on the face of record and abuse of process of law as the Applicant has paid full and final sum of Rs.9.00 Crores by way of Out of Court Settlement and the Respondent issued "No Due Certificate' dated 29-09-2022.

¶50

3.16 In fact, the Applicant has not committed default in repayment of the loan granted which is one of necessary conditions as specified under S.14 (iv) of SARFAESI but has in fact made full and final payment of all dues.

¶51

3.17 The Order dated 04-11-2022 in Crl.MP No.47 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble CJM, Tiruvallur is an abuse of process of law, illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. On these grounds, the applicant prays to set aside the Sec.14 order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

3.18 During the pendency of the SA, the applicant filed IA No. 2207/2025 seeking for a direction to respondent to produce documents relating to sale certificate dated 21.09.2020; IA No. 276/2026 a petition to produce additional documents, IA No. 277/2026 to raise additional grounds regarding sale of the property pursuant to sale notice dated 10.02.2020 and IA. No. 363/2026 seeking for direction to respondent bank to produce record of proceedings relating to sale certificate dated 21.09.2020.

¶56

3.19 The respondent bank has filed objections to IA’s along with supporting documents reiterating the availing of loan, mortgage of two properties as security, default in repayment, classification of account as NPA, issuance of S.13[2] and S.13[4] notices and S.14 Order, OTS settlement, report of part satisfaction and lifting of attachment on the mortgaged property.

¶57

3.20 It is contended that the applicant was aware of the sale proceedings as they had challenged the sale notice dated 10.02.2020 in WP No. 6738/2020. The bank had conducted the auction on 28.02.2020 and the Valasaravakkam property owned by applicant was sold and the sale proceeds of Rs.1,22,20,000/- was credit to the loan account of the applicant on 03.08.2020.

¶58

3.21 The respondent bank further intimated the DRT-II Chennai vide part satisfaction memo dated 03.02.2021 in OA No.918/2018 and the Hon’ble High Court disposed W.P.No.6738/2020 vide Order dated 07.04.2021

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

directing the applicant to approach DRT and challenge to sale is barred by limitation. Hence the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the IA’s.

¶63

Objections of the Respondent Bank:

¶64

4.1 The respondent bank has filed a detailed counter to SA inter alia contending that the applicant has availed Term Loan facilities for purchase and import of Medical equipment’s and for purchase of land. The loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 31.03.2017 due to default in the repayments and the respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 03.08.2017, Possession Notice dated 28.11.2017 and issued Sale notice dated 10.02.2020 for sale of the property situated at:

¶65

Plot No.42, Ramesh Nagar, Valasaravakkam, measuring an extent of 2080 sq.ft., which was challenged by the applicant in W.P.No.6738 of 2020 which came to be disposed with a direction to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal. The property in “Valasaravakkam” was sold and sale certificate was issued by the authorized officer on 21.09.2020 and after the issuance of the sale certificate, the applicant has approached respondent bank for One Time Settlement on 11.07.2022.

¶66

4.2 In fact, the respondent bank granted OTS settlement for Rs.9.00 crores as OTS on 10.08.2022 and the applicant has made the payment of Rs.9.00 crores and the respondent bank has issued No Due Certificate on 29.09.2022. Further, attachment by R.O DRT III over the mortgage property in Plot Nos.133,136,137,138, 139 and shop No.2 in Maduravoyil was lifted.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

4.3 The respondent bank has filed Section 14 application during January 2022 only for the property at Plot No.42, Ramesh Nagar, Valasaravakkam which was sold and sale certificate executed and not the properties which was not sold on that date. The Section 14 order was allowed on 04.11.2022 and Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the property.

¶71

4.4 It is pertinent to note that the applicant is fully aware that the property situated at “ Valasaravakkam” was sold on 21.09.2020 and entered into OTS only to save other property which is mortgaged by the applicant in favor of the respondent bank. The applicant had not sought for release of property and has challenged S.14 order after concluded sale. Therefore, the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the present SA.

¶72

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

¶73

5.1 It is discernible from the records that M/s. Paterson Cancer Centre [P] Ltd., is the borrower represented by its Managing Director Dr. S.Vijayaraghavan being a Dr. specialized in treating cancer patients intended to build a hospital.

¶74

5.2 The borrower availed Term Loan -I of Rs.12,75,70,000/- for purchase of hospital equipment and machineries and Term Loan – II of Rs. Rs.16,55,65,000/- for purchase of property situated at “New Door No.4, Poonamalle High Road, Maduravoil, Chennai – 600 095.” [for short

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

Maduravoli property ]. Thus the borrower availed a total sum of

¶79

Rs.2931.20 lakhs.

¶80

5.3 Dr. S.Vijayaraghavan is the guarantor and mortgaged his property situated at Plot No.42, Ramesh Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087.[for short Valasaravakkam property ] and the loan is secured by mortgaged of the Maduravoil and valasaravakkam two properties by MOTD.

¶81

5.4 Due to default in the repayment as per terms of sanction, the respondent bank has classified the loan account as NPA on 31.03.2017. After, classifying the loan account as NPA, the respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 03.08.2017 to the borrower and guarantor. In fact, the applicant has not disputed the receipt of Section 13(2) Demand Notice and also failed to liquidate the entire liabilities nor made any representation to the demand made by the respondent bank.

¶82

5.5 As the entire liability was not liquidated within the period of 60 days, the secured creditor proceeded further in issuing S.13(4) Possession Notice dated 28.11.2017 to the borrower and guarantor which is not questioned nor challenged possession notice, hence the respondent bank has issued the sale notice dated 10.02.2020 scheduling the sale on 28.02.2020 for both the properties ie., Maduravoli property at Item No.1 and the Valasaravakkam property at Item No.2 in the sale notice as per the sale notice dated 10.02.2020 produced by applicant at additional typeset at page 1.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

5.6 The applicant challenged the sale notice dated 10.02.2020 in W.P.No.6738 of 2020 on 11.03.2020, which came to be disposed of on 07.04.2021 directing the applicant to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Order dated 07.04.2021 is as under:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶89

It is submitted by the petitioner that though the petitioner challenged the sale notice issued by the respondent secured creditor, the sale may not have been completed.

¶90

2. The petitioner says that if any further measures are taken by the secured creditor under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the writ petitioner will carry the grievance to the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶91

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, W.P.No.6738 of 2020 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.8005 of 2020 is closed.

¶92

5.7 The bank had conducted the public auction sale on 28.02.2020 and the Valasaravakkam property owned by the applicant- Dr. S. Vijayaraghavan was successfully sold to the successful bidder Mr. Yogesh Dhanapal for a sale consideration of Rs.1,22,20,000/- as per the sale certificate dated 21.09.2020 [page 4 of bank typeset] and the sale consideration is also credited to the loan account of the applicant on 03.08.2020 as per the statement of account produced in counter to IA. No.363/2026 at page 2 of type set.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

5.8 Though the Hon’ble High Court of Madras had directed the applicant to approach DRT of any grievance to the measure, has not challenged the sale notice dated 10.02.2020 and auction sale proceedings pertaining to Valasaravakkam property in spite of the opportunity granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

¶97

5.9 It is applicant’s contention that the respondent had not informed or stated in the WP 6738/2020 about the sale of the property which proves that the bank has not sold the property pursuant to sale notice dated 10.02.2020. Further applicant places reference to S.14 petition at para 8 to contend that bank are were not able to take physical possession of the secured asset enabling them to bring the same for auction sale and are not able to take the vacant possession to be sold in public auction. Hence, it is contended that auction sale is not held pursuant to sale notice dated 10.02.2020.

¶98

5.10 On perusal of S.14 application dated 20.12.2021, it is seen that the secured creditor has mentioned they are not able to take over the vacant possession to be sold in public auction would not mean that the property is not put to auction. Infact there is no bar in secured creditor approaching the Ld. Magistrate under S.14 to take the physical possession even after the sale. What is contemplated under S.14 is that the secured creditor has to initiate measure after classifying the account as NPA and then issue demand notice under S.13[2].

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

5.11 The applicant cannot raise such trivial contention projecting to be an illegality in the measure by interpreting the words verbatim to suit the case and frustrate the measure under the Act. Further there is no prejudice caused to the applicant in mentioning “that the petitioners are not able to take over the vacant possession of the property to be sold in public auction.’

¶103

5.12 Thus, the contention that the property is not sold at the time of filing S.14 application based on the averments in S.14 application cannot sustain and further the applicant submission even before the High court that the sale may not have been completed is all applicant’s interpretation and presumptions which would not support the case of the applicant. Hence the contention that the property was not sold on the date of filing S.14 application cannot sustain and the same fails.

¶104

5.13 Yet, applicant has filed IA.No.2207/2025 seeking for the direction to the respondent bank to produce the documents pertaining to Sale Certificate dated 21.09.2020 and IA.No.277 of 2026 petition to raise the additional grounds challenging the auction sale held to which the bank has filed the counter with supporting documents contending that the applicant was fully aware of the sale has not challenged the sale within 45 days.

¶105

5.14 Further, the challenging the sale in a pending SA challenging the Sec.14 order is also not sustainable as every measure is to be challenged within the period of 45 days from the date of the measure. Admittedly, the Interim applications filed by applicant challenging the sale proceedings is

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

of the year 2025 and 2026 seeking to raise additional grounds in challenging S.14 Order in SA pending from 2022 cannot sustain.

¶110

5.15 For appreciation of the facts S.17(1) is extracted as under: -

¶111

S.17(1):

¶112

Application against measures to recover secured debts (1) 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 authorized officer under this Chapter, [may make an application along with 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:

¶113

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.]

¶114

[Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section(1) of section.17.]

¶115

5.16 Thus, it is clear that any person aggrieved by any measures under Section 13[4] is required to approach the Tribunal under S.17 within 45 days from the date of the measure. S.14 Order and auction sale notice are two different causes of action under S.13[4] which requires to be challenged within 45 days under S.17 of the Act.

¶116

5.17 Though it is evident that each measure has to be challenged within the period of 45 days and the applicant in the instant matter being fully

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

aware of the issuance of the sale notice had challenged before the Hon’ble High Court, failed to challenge the sale before this Tribunal in spite of liberty granted by high court.

¶121

5.18 Therefore, IA No. 2207/2025 seeking direction to respondent to produce documents relating to sale certificate dated 21.09.2020; IA No. 276/2026 a petition to produce additional documents, IA No. 277/2026 to raise additional grounds regarding sale of the property pursuant to sale notice dated 10.02.2020 and IA. No. 363/2026 seeking for direction to respondent bank to produce record of proceedings relating to sale certificate dated 21.09.2020 which are filed in the year 2025 and 2026 are hopeless barred by limitation as per S.17 of the Act.

¶122

5.19 Accordingly, IA No. 2207/2025, IA No. 276/2026, IA No. 277/2026 and IA. No. 363/2026 stands dismissed as the challenge to sale notice dated 10.02.2020, sale held on 28.02.2020 are not within the period of 45 days.

¶123

5.20 After the respondent bank sold the property situated at Valasaravakkam, as there was outstanding payment due and payable by the applicant, hence bank has issued sale notice dated 08.09.2021 pertaining to Maduravoyal Property scheduled to be held on 28.09.2021. The applicant had challenged the sale notice dated 08.09.2021 in SA.No.126 of 2021 and the applicant was fully aware that the bank has sold the valasaravakkam property prior to the OTS settlement.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

5.21 In fact the applicant vide letter dated 30.06.2022 approached the respondent bank for one time settlement and further requested the bank to return the original title deed of Maduravoyal property alone as is evident from OTS. The bank had agreed for a one time settlement for a sum of Rs.9 cores on 29.09.2022 and had also filed the full satisfaction memo dated 08.09.2022 in OA.No.918 of 2018. After the sale of the Valasaravakkam property the respondent bank was unable to take physical possession of the property, hence, the bank approached the Hon’ble CJM Court under Sec.14 of the Act, to take the physical possession of the mortgaged property.

¶128

5.22 The Hon’ble Magistrate after due verification of the documents and the pleadings in Sec.14 application allowed directing advocate commissioner to take the physical possession of the property which is challenged in the present SA.

¶129

5.23 The contention of the applicant that the bank has sold the property after the applicant entered into OTS is misconceived as the OTS is entered on 30.06.2022. In fact, applicant entered into OTS after the property was sold and the bank on receipt of OTS amount has issued NO due certificate, further also filed Full satisfaction memo dated 08.09.2022 to record the settlement and for release of Maduravoyal property which is also recorded in No objection certificate dated 19.11.2022 issued by the bank at page 8- 9 of their type set.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

5.24 The further contention that S.14 application is filed after the property is sold is not maintainable as the secured creditor is duty bound

¶134

to hand over the physical possession of the property to the auction purchaser. The Tribunal places reliance on Calcutta High Court judgment in the case V IJAY PRAKASH BOHRA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS where it is held that a secured creditor is entitled to invoke Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act even after the sale of the secured asset.

¶135

5.25 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 14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind.

¶136

5.26 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Others , held that while exercising power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, even the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction and/or District Magistrate and/or even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between secured creditor and debtor.”

¶137

5.27 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

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

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

¶142

ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶143

“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”.

¶144

5.28 The Supreme Court in the judgment of Authorized Officer, Indian

¶145

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

¶146

is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the Sec.14 dated 04.11.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.47/2022 passed by Ld. CJM, Thiruvallur is a valid Order.

¶147

5.29 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 S.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.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

5.30 Thus, the Section 14 order dated 04.11.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.47/2022 passed by Ld. CJM, Thiruvallur 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 S. 14 [i-ix].

¶152

5.31 Thus, it is established that the Respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act after classifying the account as NPA, issued S.13[2] dated 03.08.2017 and S.13[4] dated 28.11.2017 statuary notices and the sale notices dated 10.02.2020 and 08.09.2021 which are not challenged by the applicant. Though the applicant has challenged S.14 Order dated 04.11.2022 has failed to point out any irregularity in the Order or in the measures taken by the bank under the Act. Hence the Tribunal concludes that the S.14 order dated 04.11.2022 does not require any interference from this Tribunal and the same is held as valid Order issued is in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶153

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.

¶154

Sd/-

¶155

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

¶156

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 16^th day of March, 2026)

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶162

Sl. No.	Description of Documents		Documents No.
1.	Order in WP 6738 of 2020 dated 07.04.20	21.	A-1
2.	Petitioner Letter to Respondent 11.07.2022.	dated	A-2
3.	One Time Settlement Sanction Letter 10.08.2022.	dated	A-3
4.	No due Certificate dated 29.09.2022.		A-4
5.	Order withdrawing attachment 09.11.2022.	dated	A-5
6.	Order U/s.14 in Crl.MP.No.47 of 2022 04.11.2022.	dated	A-6
7.	Letter of Advocate R.S. Dhuriyan 24.11.2022.	dated	A-7
8.	Petitioner Statement of account.		A-8

¶163

ADDITIONAL TYPE SET OF PAPERS PRODUCED BY THE

¶164

APPLICANT

¶165

Sl. No.	Description of Documents		Documents No.
1.	Application U/s.14 dated 02.12.2021.		A-1
2.	Encumbrance Certificate dated 03.02.202	4.	A-2
3.	Order in C.R.P.No.4360 of 2022 10.01.2024.	dated	A-3
4.	Sale Notice dated 10.02.2020.		A-4
5.	Encumbrance Certificate.		A-5
6.	Petition in Crl.MP.No.47 of 2022 20.12.2021.	dated	A-6

¶166

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶167

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Sale Certificate dated 21.09.2020.	R-1
2.	Order Passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in	R-2
	W.P.No.6738 of 2020 dated 07.04.2021.

¶168

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET IN

¶169

I.A.No.363 OF 2026

¶170

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Copy of the Paper Publication of the Sale Notice	R-1
	dated 10.02.2020.

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

2.	Copy of the Ledger Statement reflecting the deduction made from the sale proceeds pertaining to Virugambakkam Property dated 31.01.2026.	R-2
3.	Copy of Part Satisfaction Memo filed before DRT- II, Chennai dated 03.02.2021.	R-3
4.	Copy of the Sale Notice dated 08.09.2021.	R-4
5.	Copy of the daily orders of the S.A.No.126 of 2021.	R-5
6.	Copy of the OTS proposal issued by the Applicant dated 30.06.2022.	R-6
7.	Copy of Full Satisfaction Memo filed before DRT- II, Chennai dated 08.09.2022.	R-7
8.	Letter dated 19.11.2022 issued by the Respondent bank for return of original documents pertaining to Maduravoyal Property dated 19.11.2022.	R-8

¶175

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET IN

¶176

I.A.No.210.2022

¶177

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	Statement of Accounts.	R-1
2.	Part Satisfaction Memo dated 3^rdFebruary 2021.	R-2
3.	Letter initiated by Applicants for One Time Settlement dated 30^thJune 2022.	R-3
4.	Full satisfaction Memo dated 8^thSeptember 2022.	R-4
5.	No-Objection Certificate dated 19^thNovember.	R-5

¶178

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶179

Item No.1

¶180

All that piece and parcel of land and small building being Plot Nos.133,136,137,138,139 and KA-2, (Shop No.2) bearing Old No.150, New Door No.4, Ponnamalle High Road, Maduravoil, Chennai -600 095 as approved in DTP No.83/1973, and comprised in Old Survey Nos.127/7C2 & 128/1, and present Survey No.128/2B, of the layout known as “Varalakshmi Nagar” in No.73, Maduravoil Previously Saidapet Taluk, at present Ambattur Taluk, as per document measuring about 8 Grounds

SA No.503/2022

16.03.2026

1030 Sq.ft., (20230 Sq.ft.,) as per Patta No.5630 and 5602 measuring about 8.53 Grounds (20478 Sq.ft.,) but in actual possession by the vendors at site measuring about 8.84 Grounds (21216 sq.ft.,) which is owned by M/s. Paterson Caner Center (P) Ltd., Bounded on the

¶185

North by : Ponnamalle High Road and S.No.128/2 South by : 30 Feet Road and Compound Wall East by : Existing Road and Compound Wall West by : Plot No.132 & 135, and compound wall.

¶186

Situated within Registration Sub District of Viruugambakkam and Registration District of Chennai South.

¶187

Item No.2

¶188

All that piece and parcel of land and building of Plot No.42, Ramesh Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai -600 087 which is owned by Dr. S. Vijayaraghavan. The property under valuation is a rectangular shaped piece of East Facing Plot measuring an extent of 2080 Sq.ft., comprised in S.No.113/9 part and 113/8 Part of Valasaravakkam, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, Bound on

¶189

North by : Lands Belongs to Mr. P.G. Krishnan South by : State Bank Colony in S.No.113/2B East by : 50 Feet Road and West by : Land belongs to Mr. P. Kumaresan

¶190

Situated within the Registration District of Chennai South and Registration Sub District of Virugambakkam.

¶191

Sd/-

¶192

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

M s Paterson Cancer Center P Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M s Paterson Cancer Center P Ltd. v. Indian Overseas 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

Karur Vysya Bank versus Zulaikha Motors PvtLtd

P Sivaramakrishnan versus Union Bank of India

Bank of India versus M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi

Rizwan versus Dcb Bank Limited

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Subathira

Premalatha s versus Repco Home Finance Limited