Dismissed

M Jayaram v. Union Bank of India

DRT6 Jan 2026SA/543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the applicant challenged an order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate authorizing physical possession of mortgaged properties. The bank sought to set aside a trial court order while facing allegations of procedural lapses like non-service of notices and valuation defects, and claimed the account was validly classified as NPA despite COVID-19. The Tribunal found the appli

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application (SA No. 543/2024) was dismissed; no costs were awarded to the applicant.

M Jayaram versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.543/2024

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI DATED THIS 06^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶4

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No. 543/2024

¶6

M. Jayaram, Prop. M/s. Jaya Ram Cards, HIG 4, 80 Feet Road, Anna Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. …. Applicant

¶7

¶8

The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Madurai Main Branch, P.B. No. 51, Rosary Buildings 1^st Floor, Town Hall Road, Madurai – 625 001. …. Defendant Bank

¶9

Appearance of Advocates: M/s. S. Suresh ---Counsel for the Applicant Mr. R. Pandivel ---- Counsel for the Defendant Bank

¶10

This SARFAESI Application was heard in the presence of Counsels for the Applicant and the Defendant Bank and fixed for passing final order before me and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

1 . This Application has been filed u/s. 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the Applicant praying that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the Impugned Order dated 19.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 957/2024 passed by the Ld. CJM, Srivilliputhur in respect of the schedule of the property and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

Page 1 of 8

¶14

SA No.543/2024

¶15

2 . The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicant are as follows:-

¶16

The Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant availed credit facilities for the development of the business from the Defendant Bank by mortgaging the Schedule Mentioned Properties as security for the due repayment of the loan. Initially, the Applicant was prompt in servicing interest and repayment of principal regularly till the intervention of Covid-19 Pandemic. Due to covid-19 Pandemic and the lock down announced by the Government the Applicant was suffering for his livelihood. Hence, the Applicant was not able to adhere to the repayment schedule of the Defendant Bank.

¶17

It is further submitted that facts being so, the Defendant has classified the loan account of the Applicant as NPA. Further it is stated that RBI had issued guidelines to restructure the MSME loans during the Covid-19 pandemic but the Defendant Bank had classified the loan account of the Applicant as NPA. Thereafter, the Defendant Bank had issued a Demand Notice dated 16.11.2023 u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 75,86,819.71p. Further, the Bank has issued Possession Notice dated 30.01.2024 and took symbolic possession of the properties mentioned in the schedule hereunder. The Applicant further submitted that the Bank had not followed the SARFAESI Procedures strictly. Thereafter, the Defendant Bank had issued Sale Notice dated 02.04.2024 fixing the date of sale on 14.05.2023. However, the Sale Notice was not published in newspaper and not affixed on the property as contemplated under Act and Rules.

¶18

It is further submitted that the Defendant Bank undervalued the property and fixed lowest reserve price and trying to sell the property to a throw away price. Aggrieved over the same, the Applicant filed SA No. 323 of 2024, which was dismissed as infructuous as the sale did not hold for want of bidders. Thereafter, the Defendant Bank filed a Petition before the Ld. CJM, Srivilliputhur in Cr.M.P.No. 975 of 2024 and the same was ordered on 19.08.24 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for taking Physical Possession of the property. Aggrieved over the same, the Applicant is preferring the present Application among the following and other

¶19

Main Grounds:

¶20

The classification of Loan account as NPA is not legally sustainable. 2. The Applicant is eligible for renewal/restructuring of the loan account as per RBI guidelines issued during Covid-19 and the same was not considered by the Defendant.

¶21

Page 2 of 8

¶22

SA No.543/2024

¶23

The Defendant had not served the Possession Notice to the Applicant nor the same was affixed on the conspicuous part of the property.

¶24

The Defendant Bank without taking any valuation of the property issued E-Auction Sale Notice dated 02.04.2024.

¶25

The Sale Notice dated 02.04.24 was not affixed on the conspicuous part of the property not the same was properly published in two leading newspapers.

¶26

The Defendant Bank had undervalued the property and fixed lowest upset price and trying to sell the property for a throw away price.

¶27

The Petition filed u/s. 14 of the Act does not contain the full details and the Defendant had suppressed the material facts and they have not filed any affidavit along with the petition.

¶28

Schedule of Property

¶29

All that piece and the parcel of the land admeasuring 4936.96 sq.ft. with residential building bearing Door no. 347/K2 & 347/K3, Situated at Virudhunagar Registration District, Rajapalayam Sub Registrar Office, Rajapalayam Panchayat Union, South Venganaloor Village, Pudhupalayam Village, patta nos. 2698 & 2675, plot no. 47 and Plot no. 48, Survey No. 89, the sub division S.No. 89/3D, Hectares 0.94.5 Acres 1 cents 92, Survey No. 90/1 the Sub division S.No. 90/1A1 Hectares 0.77.5 Acres 1 cents 92, Survey No. 91/1B Hectares 0.05.0 is 12 cents, Survey No. 91/2B Hecters 0.03.5 is 9 cents, Totally 1.80.5 Hectares is 4 Acres and 46 cents were sub divided into various house plots naming Siranjeevi Nagar by providing roads and got approval from South Venganallur Panchayat President Proceedings No. 1/2004 dated 20.04.2004.

¶30

Item No. 1 Plot No. 47

¶31

Bounded on:

¶32

North - The Land in plot No. 51 belongs to Lakshmana Perumal Raja, East - The Land in plot no. 46 belongs to Ayyasamy Thevar, South – 20 ft. width East – West Road,

¶33

West - The land in Plot no. 48 belongs to V. Sekar and S. Murugeswari (item no. 2 properties),

¶34

Within these boundaries plot no. 47 with an extent of 2396.625 sq.ft, Measures North 41 ft, South 42 ft, East 57 ft, West 58.50 ft., totally 2396.625 sq.ft.

¶35

Item No. 2 Plot No. 48

¶36

Bounded on:

¶37

North – The Land in Plot No. 50, South – 20 ft. width East – West Road, East – The Land in Plot No. 47 (item No. 1 properties), West – The Land in plot no. 49,

¶38

Page 3 of 8

¶39

SA No.543/2024

¶40

Within these boundaries plot no. 48 with an extent of 2540.34 sq.ft measures North 43.75 ft., South 42 ft., East 58.50 ft., West 60 ft., totally 2540.34 sq.ft.

¶41

The Applicant has submitted the following List of documents in support of his claim in the SA, which are as follows:

¶42

S.No.	Date	Details of Documents
1.	16.11.2023	Demand Notice
2.	2.04.24	Auction Sale Notice
3.	19.08.24	Impugned Order in Crl.M.P.No. 975 of 2024

¶43

3 . On the other hand, the Counsel for the Defendant Bank appeared before this Tribunal and filed Vakalat, Reply Statement along with typed set of papers in which he has submitted that the Defendant Bank strongly & vehemently & specifically denies each & every allegations under the heading "Facts of the case" & "Grounds" of the SARFAESI Application. The Applicant are put to strict proof of every one of the said allegations with valid & acceptable evidence. Most of the allegations are unwarranted so far as the matter-in-issue is concerned.

¶44

It is further submitted that the Applicant was not prompt in repayment of loan and he is a willful & chronic defaulter. The Bank has rightly declared the account as NPA only after taking into consideration of RBI guidelines. The loan was sanctioned on 21.07.22 and it was classified as NPA on 12.11.23 and by that time there are no covid pandemic restrictions. The Applicant is not eligible for any renewal/restructuring of the loan. The declaration of account as NPA is not bad in law and that the bank has rightly declared the account as NPA and so the bank is having all right/jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of SARFAESI Act and that all proceedings of the bank are legally sustainable. The symbolic possession taken by the bank is neither illegal nor in blatant violation of the provisions and that the Possession Notice was served on the Applicant. The Bank has duly affixed the Possession Notice & Sale Notice on the conspicuous part of the property and that the bank has published the Possession Notice & Sale Notice in two leading newspapers. The Bank has taken valuation after issuing Possession Notice and that the bank has not undervalued the property and that the bank has rightly fixed correct upset price.

¶45

It is further submitted that the Applicant had already challenged the Sale Notice in SA 323/24 and that he challenged the Sale Notice & Valuation & upset price in that SA 323/24 and that the said SA was dismissed as infructuous and so the Applicant is now estopped from questioning the Sale

¶46

Page 4 of 8

¶47

SA No.543/2024

¶48

Notice & Valuation & upset price in this SARFAESI Application in which CJM order is under challenge. Despite having sufficient means the Applicant has wantonly willfully not complied the conditional order passed by this Tribunal in SA No. 323/24. Further it is stated that it is not necessary that the CJM has to issue notice to the Applicant before passing order and that the CJM is not adjudicating any issue and the bank has approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate for seeking assistance for taking Physical Possession of the property through Advocate Commissioner and so the order of the CJM is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable nor legally unsustainable nor suffers from error apparent on the face of the record.

¶49

It is further submitted that the section 14 petition contains all details and that the Bank has not suppressed any material facts and that the bank has filed Affidavit along with Section 14 petition and that the notices issued u/s. 13(2) & 13(4) are not contrary to the facts and so the CJM has rightly passed its order. The action of the Bank is neither unlawful nor unreasonable nor without jurisdiction nor against the principles of natural justice and so the order of CJM is not liable to be set-aside. It is further submitted that the Bank has issued Demand Notice and the same was also duly served on the Applicant. The Bank has taken symbolic possession of the property & issued Possession Notice and the Possession Notice was duly served on the Applicant and affixed the Possession Notice on the conspicuous part of the property and the Possession Notice was also published both in Tamil daily & in English daily in time.

¶50

It is further submitted that the Applicant has not complied with the conditional order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence, the Applicant is not entitled to agitate the case on merits and that he is not having any rights to hear the case on merits. The Applicant has not sent any reply to the 13(2) Demand Notice. There is no procedural irregularity on the part of the CJM in passing its Order. The Applicant has not challenged the Possession Notice. Non challenging the Possession Notice is fatal to the case. Without challenging the Possession Notice, CJM Order cannot be challenged.

¶51

It is further submitted that there is no procedural irregularity on the part of the Defendant Bank in issuing the Demand Notice & taking possession & issuing Possession Notice & getting order from CJM under the SARFAESI Act & Rules and that the alleged procedural irregularity mentioned in the SARFAESI Application are not factually & legally correct and that the Defendant Bank has issued the Demand Notice, Possession Notice & obtained order from CJM only as per the provisions & procedures of the SARFAESI Act & Rules. Hence, if the CJM order is set-aside, the Defendant Bank will be put to untold hardships. The Applicant is a willful & chronic defaulter. The only remedy available to the Applicant is to re-pay the entire dues to the Defendant

¶52

Page 5 of 8

¶53

SA No.543/2024

¶54

Bank as per section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The SARFAESI Application is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

¶55

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above SARFAESI Application with cost and thus render justice.

¶56

Typed set filed on the side of the Defendant Bank

¶57

S.No.	Date	Particulars
1	21.07.22	Loan sanction letter
2	16.11.23	Demand Notice with AD Cards & Return covers
3	21.11.23	Demand Notice Paper Publication in English daily
4	21.11.23	Demand Notice Paper Publication in Tamil daily
5	21.11.23	Photographyshowingaffixture of Demand Notice
6	30.01.24	Possession Notice with AD Cards & Return covers
7	30.01.24	Possession Notice Paper Publication in English daily
8	30.01.24	Possession Notice Paper Publication in Tamil daily
9	30.01.24	Photographyshowingaffixture of Possession Notice
10	19.08.24	CJM Order

¶58

Additional Typed set filed on the side of the Defendant Bank

¶59

S.No.	Date	Particulars
1	21.11.23	Demand Notice Original Paper Publication in English daily
2	21.11.23	Demand Notice original Paper Publication in Tamil daily
3	30.01.24	Possession Notice Original Paper Publication in English daily
4	30.01.24	Possession Notice Original Paper Publication in Tamil daily
5	---	Original certified copyof Petition filed before CJM
6	---	Colour xeroxed certified copy of Affidavit filed along with petition before CJM

¶60

4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:-

¶61

WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO GET THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR?

¶62

5 . Having heard the parties and after going through the entire documents available on the records, this Tribunal find that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the availment of credit facilities by mortgaging the Schedule Mentioned Properties as security for the due repayment of the loan. It is stated by the Applicant that initially, he was prompt in servicing interest and repayment of principal regularly, however, due to Covid-19 pandemic he was suffering for his livelihood, and hence, he was not able to adhere to the repayment schedule of the Defendant Bank. Hence the Defendant Bank has

¶63

Page 6 of 8

¶64

SA No.543/2024

¶65

classified the loan account as NPA on 12.11.2023 and issued Demand Notice dated 16.11.2023 U/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 75,86,819.71p (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen and paise Seventy One only). The Defendant Bank has also filed the copy of Demand Notice dated 16.11.2023 with AD Cards & Return covers (Page nos. 6 to 22 of Bank’s typed set of papers), Photo showing affixture of Demand Notice on the conspicuous part of the property (Page no. 25 of Bank’s typed set of papers) & Original Paper Publication of Demand Notice in both English & Tamil dailies on 21.11.23 (Page nos. 1 & 2 of Additional typed set of papers filed by the Defendant Bank). However, the Applicant has not filed any reply/ representation sent to the Defendant Bank U/s. 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act.

¶66

Thereafter, the Defendant Bank has issued Possession Notice dated 30.01.2024 U/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Bank has filed the copies of Possession Notice, AD Cards & Return covers with postal remarks “Addressee left without instructions (Page nos. 26 to 34 of Bank’s typed set of papers), Photo showing affixture of Possession Notice on the conspicuous part of the property (Page nos. 37 & 38 of Bank’s typed set of papers) & Original Paper Publication of Possession Notice in both English & Tamil dailies on 30.01.24 (Page nos. 3 & 4 of Additional typed set of papers filed by the Defendant Bank).

¶67

Thereafter, the Defendant Bank has issued Sale Notice dated 02.04.2024 fixing the date of sale on 14.05.2023, which was already challenged by the Applicant in SA No. 323 of 2024 in this Tribunal. Further, the Applicant also failed to comply the conditional stay order granted in that SA. However, on the basis of Memo filed by the Defendant Bank stating that the Sale did not take place for want of bidders, the SA got dismissed as infructuous by this Tribunal on 26.08.2024 with the consent of the Applicant Counsel. Hence, no more adjudication is required in respect of the Sale Notice dated 02.04.2024.

¶68

Page 7 of 8

¶69

SA No.543/2024

¶70

Thereafter, the Defendant Bank has approached the Ld. CJM, Srivilliputhur & obtained the Impugned Order dated 19.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 957/2024 for obtaining the Physical Possession of the Schedule Mentioned Property. I also find that the Defendant Bank has filed original certified copy of Petition filed before the Ld. CJM & a copy of certified copy of Affidavit filed along with Petition before the Ld. CJM (Page nos. 5 to 30 of Additional typed set of papers filed by the Defendant Bank).

¶71

In this case, I find that the Defendant Bank has filed evidences and proved that they had followed the SARFAESI Procedures while issuing the SARFAESI Notices to the Applicant & obtained the Impugned Order dated 19.08.2024 from the Ld. CJM, Srivilliputhur for taking Physical Possession of the Schedule Mentioned Property. I also find that both the parties have failed to produce the Statement of Accounts to verify the genuineness of the accounts. Further, the Applicant has not placed any material evidence before this Tribunal to substantiate his claim that the classification of loan account as NPA is wrong.

¶72

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this SARFAESI Application and that the Applicant has not been able to prove the case in his favour.

¶73

In the result,

¶74

SA No. 543/2024 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶75

Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of. No costs.

¶76

Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 06^th January, 2026.

¶77

sd/-

¶78

(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶79

Dictated & corrected by me sd/-

¶80

(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER Typed by me (D. Krishnaveni, PA)

¶81

Uploaded on 12.01.2026

¶82

Page 8 of 8

M Jayaram v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Jayaram 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

Canara Bank versus Abinaya

A Nagammal versus Chief Judicial Magistrate

Canara Bank versus a Francis

Canara Bank versus a Christopher Jenkins, Prop Jesus Margin Free Store

Canara Bank versus a Francis

S R Ratheesh versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.