Disposed

shri C Durai Son of Chidambaram v. Punjab National Bank

DRT10 Apr 2026SA/588/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Dispute Resolution Tribunal disposed of a Securitization Application challenging a Section 14 order. The court held the application infructuous because the applicant admitted the bank had already taken physical possession of the mortgaged property, making further adjudication unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

SA stands disposed as infructuous; no order as to cost.

shri C Durai Son of Chidambaram versus Punjab National Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

SA No.588/2024

10.04.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 588 of 2024

¶8

Shri, C.Durai S/o Chidambaram, No.26, Sarangapani Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Punjab National Bank Rep by its Chief Manager, Circle SASTRA 2nd Floor, Spencer Plaza,

¶11

No.769, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. Durairaj, K.Saravanan Counsel for respondent : M/s. Rahul Jain

¶14

ORDER ON SA 588/2024

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 28.08.2024 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].

¶16

The applicant has challenged Sec.14 order dated 10.07.2024 in C.M.P. No.2172 of 2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpat and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.1,41,06,387/-

SA No.588/2024

10.04.2026

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶21

The applicant is the borrower who had availed a loan of Rs.80 Lakhs on 19.11.2015, repayable in 144 Equal monthly installment of Rs.1,41,438/- @ 13% p.a. and also availed a mortgage loan of Rs.5 lakhs, had deposited the original title deeds of Mrs. Malathi.

¶22

It is contended that one person namely Mr. Kannan introduced the applicant to Mr. Chandru who introduced Mr. M.A. Mugesh (Murugeshan), proprietor of Devine Enterprise who has running the business and said Mr.M.A. Mugesh (Murugeshan) repaid loan amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to Mrs. Malathi and collected the original title deeds of the documents.

¶23

It is contended that without knowledge of the applicant Mr. M.A. Mugesh (Murugeshan) and Mr. Chandru and Mr. Kannan the Branch Manager in collusion have jointly cheated the applicant and availed the loan from the respondent bank a sum of Rs.80 Lakhs which the applicant is not aware. Hence, the applicant had lodged complaint before the Chennai – CCB, CCB-1 and first information report has been registered (vide FIR No.236 of 2022 on 01.11.2022 at TEAM 37, EDF-II, CCB) and the matter is pending enquiry.

¶24

It is contended that the applicant had not executed any loan documents however, is added as co-applicant and all the signature mentioned in his name is not signed by applicant. The bank has invoked the SARFAESI proceedings without application of mind. It is contended

SA No.588/2024

10.04.2026

that the applicant did not receive any notices and without any application

¶29

bank of mind has filed the Sec.14 application and have obtained order.

¶30

On these grounds the applicant prays to set aside the Sec.14 order dated 10.07.2024 in C.M.P. No.2172 of 2024 passed by the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpat.

¶31

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶32

The respondent bank has filed e detailed counter along with the supporting documents inter alia contending that the applicant being the Partner of M/s. Divine Enterprises, had availed one Cash Credit facility of Rs.80.00 Lakhs from the Respondent Bank. Subsequent to the availing of the credit facility, the Applicant had failed to service the principal and interest in compliance of the terms and conditions of the Sanction letter, and thus loan account had slipped to NPA on 28.12.2017 as per RBI norms.

¶33

The Applicants did not regularize the loan account, hence, the bank had initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the Applicant by issuing U/s.13(2) Demand Notice dated 27.05.2022 under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the outstanding dues of Rs.1,41,06,387/- as on 30.04.2022 payable to the Respondent Bank.

¶34

Subsequently, the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued U/s.13(4) Possession Notice dated 24.08.2022 under the SARFAESI Act to the Applicant. Further, the Respondent, by following the Rule 8(1) and (2) of the SARFAESI Rules, had affixed the Possession Notice at the conspicuous place of the property on 24.08.2022. The possession notice

SA No.588/2024

10.04.2026

was also published in two leading newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and one local Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 25.08.2022.

¶39

The Respondent obtained a valuation report for the property from the Bank’s approved valuer to fix the reserve price prior to the e-auction sale. Despite being given sufficient time and opportunity, the applicant failed to pay the outstanding dues. Consequently, the Respondent issued a Sale Notice dated 02.12.2023, placing the scheduled property for e-auction on 27.12.2023, during which one successful bidder was secured. Hence respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶40

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

¶41

Admittedly, the applicant is the mortgagor who availed the loan and executed all the necessary loan documents; therefore, the availing of the credit facility and the creation of the mortgage are not disputed by the applicant. It is seen from the records that the title deeds of applicant has been mortgaged and executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds which is registered and the same is produced at Pg.16 by the applicant.

¶42

Due to default, the bank has issued S.13(2) Demand Notice dated 27.05.2022, 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.

SA No.588/2024

10.04.2026

The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice is sent by RPAD which the applicant have received the Demand Notice as per the Acknowledgement card and Tracking consignment produced at Pg.3-6 of counter. The Demand Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 16.06.2022. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice as the borrower and the guarantor did not liquated the liability within 60 days nor raised any objections to the demand made, hence the respondent bank has proceeded further under the Act.

¶47

The respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 24.08.2022 and the notice sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgment, returned with postal endorsement as “No Such Person” to M/s. Divine Enterprises, proof of which is produced at pg.11 and 12. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 25.08.2022 and the Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.13 and 14 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶48

It is seen further that the respondent bank have issued the sale notice dated 02.12.2023 and the sale is successfully held on 27.12.2023 and the sale confirmation is issued on auction purchaser on 28.12.2023 and sale certificate is issued on 11.01.2024. In fact both the counsels submits that the bank has taken the physical possession of the secured asset in the year 2025. As the present SA is filed challenging the Sec.14 order and the

SA No.588/2024

10.04.2026

prayer is sought to set aside the Sec.14 order. As the applicant himself admits the physical possession is already taken nothing survives for further adjudication in the matter.

¶53

The respondent bank have established the due compliance of the measures. Hence it is concluded that the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 27.05.2022 and Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 24.08.2022 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor as per the procedure as described under the Act and rules made there under.

¶54

As the prayer in the SA has become infructuous nothing survives for further adjudication and the other challenges to the measures is not within the period of 45 days as required under S.17 of the Act.

¶55

Accordingly, SA stands disposed as infructuous. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost. Sd/-

¶56

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

¶57

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 10^th day of April, 2026)

¶58

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶59

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Order in Crl.M.P.No.2172/2024 dated	A-1
	10.07.2024.
2.	Copy of Mortgage Deed dated 19.11.2015.	A-2
3.	Copy of FIR Filed by applicant dated 01.11.2022.	A-3

¶60

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶61

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.

SA No.588/2024

10.04.2026

1.	Demand Notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act issued by the respondent to the applicant dated 27.05.2022.	R-1
2.	Acknowledgement receipt and online tracking consignments issued by the postal authority.	R-2
3.	Publication of the Demand notice by the respondent dated 16.06.2022.	R-3
4.	Possession Notice under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act issued by the respondent to the applicant dated 24.08.2022.	R-4
5.	Postal receipts and postal cover issued by the Postal authority.	R-5
6.	Affixture of the possession notice by the respondent dated 24.08.2022.	R-6
7.	Publication of the possession notice by the respondent dated 25.08.2022.	R-7
8.	Sale Notice issued by the respondent to the applicant dated 02.12.2023.	R-8
9.	Sale Confirmation letter issued to the auction purchaser dated 28.12.2023.	R-9

¶66

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶67

All that piece and Parcel of the land and building Old No20, New Door No.26, Sarangapani street, Chennai - 600 119 comprised in Survey No.439/15 of Sholinganallur Village, Measuring an extent of 1452 sq. ft out of land extent of 5790 sq.ft. sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District

¶68

North by: Veeraiyya's Land

¶69

South by: Sarangapani Street

¶70

East by: Property settled to Mr.Kannan

¶71

West by: Property Settled to Mr.Gopal

¶72

Situated within the registration District of South Chennai and SubRegistrar in Neelankarai.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

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

shri C Durai Son of Chidambaram v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

shri C Durai Son of Chidambaram v. Punjab National 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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus phoenix Arc Private limited

A Immanuel Raj versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus a Durairaj and Two Others

Union Bank of India versus Bilaverndiran

Bank of Baroda versus Srikara Bojana

State Bank of India versus Jeeva R