Dismissed

Sujatha Kumaravel v. State Bank of India

DRT22 May 2026SA/581/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Act petition, the Debt Recovery Tribunal examined a challenge to a bank's possession notice. The applicants alleged procedural lapses, including non-compliance with publication requirements under Rule 8 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002. The Tribunal accepted evidence of proper notice delivery, newspaper publication, and affixture of the notice, dismissing the petit

What did the court decide?

The Special Application was dismissed. The measures initiated by the respondent bank are in conformity with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules thereunder.

Sujatha Kumaravel versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of May, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY Presiding Officer

¶4

SA No.581 of 2024

¶5

Smt. Sujatha Kumaravel W/o Shri Kumaravel. R 30, 8^th Cross Street

¶6

Arulananda Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 007

¶7

R. Kumaravel S/o Ramasamy

¶8

15, 3^rd Cross Street, Arulananda Nagar

¶9

Thanjavur – 613 007 … Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Authorised Officer State Bank of India SME Branch, Thanjavur

¶12

State Bank of India

¶13

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch Red Cross Buildings, 2^nd Floor No.32, Monteith Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 008 …Respondents

¶14

Counsel on Record / Appeared

¶15

Applicants by : M/s R. Chandramohan Respondent by : M/s M.L. Ganesh

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act challenging the Possession Notice dated 11.11.2024 issued by the Respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶18

¶19

Facts of the case as averred in the SA

¶20

The 1^st applicant is the wife of 2^nd applicant and they availed a housing loan of Rs.1,28,00,000/- on 26.03.2019 and availed another top up loan of Rs.35,00,000/- on 10.09.2019. The applicants were regular in payment, however due to COVID-19 pandemic the default had occurred and the respondent classified the loan account as NPA.

¶21

In these circumstances, the demand notice dated 20.6.2024 came to be issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter the applicants have made several payments and the same have not been given credit to the loan account. All of a sudden the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned possession notice on 11.11.2024. The applicant is ready and willing to settle the loan dues if the same is considered by the Respondents. The action of the respondents issuing the impugned possession notice is highly illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Grounds Urged

¶23

4 (i) The classification of the account as NPA is contrary to the guidelines of RBI.

¶24

(ii) The respondent has failed to comply with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in which the publication has not been made in two newspapers as mandated under law.

¶25

(iii) The respondent has not property accounted the repayments made by the applicant.

¶26

¶27

5 The applicant along with the SA had filed documents viz., demand notice dated 20.06.2024, Possession Notice dated 11.11.2024.

¶28

Counter of Respondent

¶29

Upon notice the respondent filed counter affidavit stating therein that the SA is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the respondent bank has complied with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is stated that the demand notice dated 20.06.2024 is served on the applicants on 25.06.2024, the possession notice dated 11.11.2024 is served on the applicants on 13.11.2024, the possession notice is duly affixed on the secured asset and also published in newspapers.

¶30

The respondent has classified the account as NPA on 19.6.2024 strictly in accordance with the guidelines of RBI.

¶31

The applicant had availed housing loan as well as top up loan aggregating to Rs.1.63 crores and has not adhered to the terms and conditions of sanction and the applicants also defaulted in repayments and hence the account was classified as NPA. The remittances made by the applicants have been duly given credit to.

¶32

The applicant’s husband Mr. Kumaravel also availed credit facilities in the name of M/s Soundarya Aqua Products from the respondent bank

¶33

¶34

for his business operation and failed to service the loan liability resulting in the loan account being classified as NPA and the total dues in the account is Rs.1.36 crores.

¶35

Subsequent to filing of SA, the applicant has remitted a sum of Rs.42 lakhs towards compliance of the interim order passed by this Tribunal. The total due in the housing loan account is Rs.1.75 crore as on 4.4.2025. The applicant Mrs. Sujatha Kumaravel has also availed credit facilities for her business operation as Proprietor and failed to service the loan liability resulting in the classification of the account as NPA and the amount due in that account is Rs.48.83 lakhs as on 4.4.2025.

¶36

The allegation that the statement of accounts is not furnished is false. The respondent has complied with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder and hence the present SA is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶37

Alongwith the counter the respondent filed typed set viz.,

¶38

(i) Demand notice dated 20.06.2024 along with postal acknowledgements dated 25.06.2025. (ii) Possession Notice dated 11.11.2024 alongiwth postal acknowledgements dated 16.11.2024.

¶39

(iii) Photograph evidencing affixture of the possession notice.

¶40

(iv) Publication of the Possession Notice in English and Tamil daily dated 13.11.2024.

¶41

¶42

(v) Statement of accounts.

¶43

Points for consideration

¶44

13 Having heard at length the arguments of the Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and after going through the documents available on record, the following point arises for determination in these proceedings:-

¶45

Whether the impugned possession notice is in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder?

¶46

Answers to the point for consideration

¶47

At the outset, it is to be stated that while the secured creditor has been given the right to enforce the security interest without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal, the secured creditor while enforcing the same shall invariably comply the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder, lest, the Tribunal can set aside the same if questioned.

¶48

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in re Mathew Vargheese Vs. M.

¶49

Amirtha Kumar and others 2014 (5) SCC P-610( paragraph 24) held :

¶50

“that a free hand is given to the SECURED CREDITOR for the purpose of enforcing any security interest created in favour of SECURED CREDITOR, without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal. The only other relevant aspect contained in the said sub- section is that such enforcement should be in accordance with the provisions of this Act . A reading of Section 13(1), therefore, is clear to the effect that while on the one hand any SECURED CREDITOR may be entitled to enforce the SECURED ASSET created in its favour on its own without resorting to any court proceedings or approaching the Tribunal, such enforcement should be in conformity with the other provisions of the SARFAESI Act ”

¶51

¶52

In so far as the case in hand is concerned, since the subject matter of challenge is Possession Notice issued in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the same shall be in conformity with Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which are as follows:

¶53

“ 8. Sale of immovable secured assets.—

¶54

(1) Where the secured asset is an immovable property, the authorised officer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by delivering a possession notice prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix IV to these rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property.

¶55

(2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be published in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer.”

¶56

The respondent bank, in its counter affidavit, have firmly asserted that they had complied with the required mandatory procedure and also filed documents in support of the said contention.

¶57

In so far as the ground with regard to non-service of demand notice dated 25.06.2024 is concerned the respondent has filed a copy of the demand notice and the proof of service at Page Nos.1 to 7. Therefore, this ground of the applicant fails.

¶58

19 In so far as non-compliance of Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is concerned, possession notice dated 11.11.2024 is concerned the respondent has filed the possession notice and the postal acknowledgements at Pages 8 and 9 and 12 to 19 of its typed set of documents filed along with the SA. The respondent

¶59

¶60

has also produced the copies of paper publication dated 13.11.2024 at pages 20 and 21 of the typed set for having published the same in English and Tamil dailies i.e., Indian Express and Dinamani well within 7 days of the notice. Further the respondent has filed the photographs evidencing affixture of the possession notice on the secured asset at Page 10 and 11 of the typed set. Thus this ground raised by the applicants also fails.

¶61

20 Thus, there is compliance of mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder by the Authorised Officer while issuing the possession notice impugned in this application, hence, the same does not call for any interference by this Tribunal. Point is answered accordingly.

¶62

21 Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the Tribunal finds no merit or substance in the application and the measures as initiated by the respondent bank are in conformity with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder, as such, the same does not warrant any interference from the this Tribunal.

¶63

In so far as the contention of the applicants with regard to the settlement proposal, it is to be stated that the same is the prerogative of the respondent bank and this Tribunal cannot interfere with the same.

¶64

¶65

22. Hence the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(a) SA No.581 of 2024 stands dismissed. All other pending IAs, if any, stands closed.

¶68

(b) Parties to bear their own costs.

¶69

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned as per

¶70

the rules.

¶71

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶72

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 22^nd day of May, 2026)

¶73

Sujatha Kumaravel v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujatha Kumaravel v. State Bank of India

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

Poovai Amman Avency and Others versus City Union Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Real Deal Electronic India Ltd.

Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/S. Eminent Services and Solutions

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sisthi Leathers

Sun Milk products Represented by its proprietor periyar dasan samraj and two others versus Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sumuka Cnc Tech