Dismissed

S Shanthi v. Punjab National Bank

DRT27 Jul 2026SA/594/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tribunal dismissed the applicant’s preference under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging possession notices issued by the bank. The court held that the bank complied with statutory procedures and that the stay on a consumer commission order did not restrain the bank from enforcing security interests.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application (SA No. 594/2025) was dismissed with no costs awarded to either party.

S Shanthi versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI DATED THIS 27^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶4

PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶5

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd]

¶6

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶7

SA No. 594/2025

¶8

1. Mrs. S. Shanthi W/o Late S. Muthuramalingam Plot No. 9 & 10, Akilandeswari Nagar 2^nd Street, Anaiyur Village Madurai – 625 017

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

1. The Authorised Officer Punjab National Bank

¶11

SASTRA Centre, Circle Office PNB House, Trichy-Tanjore road Kailasapuram, Trichy – 620 014

¶12

2. Punjab National Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager K.K. Nagar Branch 14, K.K. Nagar Main Road Madurai

¶13

Appearance of Advocates: M/s S. Suresh ---- Counsel for the Applicant Mr. C. Deepak ---- Counsel for the 1^st Defendant Bank

¶14

This Application was heard in the presence of M/s S. Suresh, Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. C. Deepak, Counsel for the 1^st Defendant Bank in the aforesaid case and upon hearing the arguments

¶15

¶16

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶17

of both sides Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1. This Application has been filed under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with a prayer to setaside the subsequent possession notice dated 13.10.2025 issued by the 1^st Defendant Bank under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶20

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

¶21

A. The Applicant submitted that, she along with her husband approached the 2^nd Defendant Bank for financial assistance to construct a residential house. Accordingly, the 2^nd Defendant sanctioned a Housing Loan of Rs.31,00,000/-(Rupees thirty one lakhs only) on 15.03.2019, which included Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) towards PNB Met Loan Insurance. The loan was repayable in 180 monthly instalments (EMIs) of Rs.31,147/- (Rupees thirty one thousand one hundred forty seven only). The Applicant and her husband executed the necessary loan documents and created an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds of the scheduled property belonging to the Applicant's husband. The Bank disbursed Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only), while retaining Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) towards the insurance premium.

¶22

B. The Applicant further submitted that, at the time of sanctioning the loan, the Defendants obtained signatures of the Applicant and her husband on several blank papers and pre-filled forms without

¶23

¶24

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶25

disclosing their contents or purpose. The Applicant was unaware of the manner in which such signed documents would subsequently be used by the Bank.

¶26

C. The Applicant submitted that the loan account was regularly paid, and the EMIs were paid without default until the death of the Applicant's husband in the year 2022. There was neither diversion nor misuse of the loan amount. The loan was covered under an insurance policy, and therefore, upon the death of the Applicant's husband, the outstanding liability ought to have been settled under the insurance coverage. However, despite the existence of the insurance policy, the Defendants threatened to initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, compelling the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs.13,12,500/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs twelve thousand five hundred only) under coercion, though she was not legally liable to make such payment.

¶27

D. The Applicant further submitted that aggrieved by the refusal of the Bank to honour the insurance coverage and close the loan account, the Applicant filed Consumer Complaint No.47 of 2023 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai and order dated 18.12.2023, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to close the loan account, issue a discharge receipt, return the original title deeds, refund Rs.13,12,500/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs twelve thousand five hundred only) with interest at 9% per annum, and pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the Applicant. Challenging the said order, the 2nd Defendant preferred First Appeal No.281 of 2024 before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai Circuit Bench, and obtained an interim order of stay. The appeal is still pending adjudication. During the pendency of the above appeal, the Defendants issued a Recall Notice dated 12.02.2025. The Applicant, through her counsel, issued a legal notice dated 17.02.2025, informing the Bank about the order

¶28

¶29

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶30

passed by the District Consumer Commission and calling upon it not to proceed further. Ignoring the said communication, the Defendants classified the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 29.01.2025, allegedly without following the applicable RBI guidelines and despite the subsisting dispute regarding the outstanding liability.

¶31

E. The Applicant submitted that the 1^st Defendant issued a Demand Notice dated 23.04.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding Rs.20,59,588.24 (Rupees twenty lakhs fifty nine thousand five hundred eighty eight and twenty four paise only). The Applicant submitted detailed objections under Section 13(3A) of the Act. However, the Defendants rejected the objections by an evasive reply dated 27.06.2025, without properly considering the issues raised therein.

¶32

F. Further it is submitted that the Demand Notice had already been served upon the Applicant, the Defendants proceeded to publish the Demand Notice in a Tamil daily newspaper dated 06.06.2025, thereby unnecessarily causing damage to the Applicant's reputation and imposing avoidable publication expenses.

¶33

G. The Applicant submitted that subsequently, the 1st Defendant issued a Possession Notice dated 07.07.2025 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, without withdrawing the earlier notice, the Defendants issued further Possession Notices dated 06.08.2025 and 13.10.2025, thereby initiating multiple possession proceedings in respect of the same secured asset. The Applicant submits that the Defendants failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, particularly with regard to service, publication and affixture of the Possession Notice.

¶34

H. Being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary measures initiated by the Defendants under the SARFAESI Act, particularly the Possession Notice dated 07.07.2025, the Applicant has preferred the present

¶35

¶36

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶37

Securitisation Application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶38

GROUNDS

¶39

a) The impugned Possession Notice dated 07.07.2025 and all consequential measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act are arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and are therefore liable to be set aside.

¶40

b) The Defendants failed to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 while initiating recovery proceedings against the Applicant.

¶41

c) The classification of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the RBI guidelines. The Defendants failed to follow the prescribed norms before classifying the account as NPA. Further, in view of the insurance coverage and the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, there was no legally enforceable debt warranting initiation of SARFAESI proceedings.

¶42

d) The Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act is invalid as it does not comply with the mandatory requirements of law. The notice does not disclose the particulars of the Authorised Officer and is not shown to have been issued by a competent Authorised Officer. The Defendants are put to strict proof regarding the validity and service of the Demand Notice.

¶43

e) The Defendants failed to properly consider and dispose of the Applicant's objections submitted under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act by passing a reasoned order, thereby violating the statutory mandate.

¶44

¶45

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶46

f) The publication of the Demand Notice in the newspaper, despite the Applicant having already received the notice and submitted her objections, was unnecessary, arbitrary and intended only to tarnish the Applicant's reputation.

¶47

g) The Defendants issued the Possession Notice without strictly adhering to the statutory time requirements and other mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules.

¶48

h) The Defendants failed to validly serve, affix and publish the Possession Notice in the manner prescribed under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Possession Notice was neither properly served upon all concerned parties nor published in accordance with law. Further, the Defendants issued multiple Possession Notices without withdrawing the earlier notices, rendering the proceedings legally unsustainable.

¶49

i) The Defendants proceeded with SARFAESI measures despite the order passed by the District Consumer Commission directing closure of the loan account and return of the title deeds. The mere grant of an interim stay in the appeal does not validate the illegal recovery proceedings or extinguish the Applicant's rights arising from the Consumer Commission's order.

¶50

j) The Defendants obtained the signatures of the Applicant and her husband on blank papers and pre-filled forms at the time of sanction of the loan without proper disclosure. The Applicant reasonably apprehends misuse of such documents by the Defendants.

¶51

k) The Defendants have failed to furnish the correct outstanding balance and complete statement of accounts. The amounts claimed in the recovery proceedings are incorrect and do not reflect all the credits made by the Applicant. The Defendants are therefore liable to produce the complete and accurate statement of accounts.

¶52

¶53

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶54

l) The Defendants have failed to register the security interest with the Central Registry as contemplated under Section 20 of the SARFAESI Act, rendering the recovery proceedings legally defective.

¶55

m) The Defendants have charged interest in excess of the agreed contractual rate and have also levied penal interest without authority of law, thereby inflating the alleged outstanding dues.

¶56

n) The Authorised Officer, being a statutory authority exercising quasijudicial functions under the SARFAESI Act, is bound to act fairly, reasonably and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The failure to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements vitiates the entire recovery proceedings initiated against the Applicant.

¶57

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶58

Immovable Property in the name of Late Mr. S. Muthramalingam S/o S. Sethuramalingam (Legal Heirs Mrs. Shanti. S, Mrs. Subbulakshmi and Mrs. Manisha)

¶59

All that piece and parcel of Land and Building situated at Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Madurai Joint-4 Sub District, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai Zone, Anaiyur Village, now Anaiyur 1bit Village, Old Survey No. 7/1B, Now Sub Division Re Survey No. 7/1B1, Ma. Va. Ma(Ma.Ma) 70/83 vide approved by Deputy Director, Madurai Division Town and Country Planning “Agilandeshwari Nagar, 2^nd Street” Plot No. 9 & 10 within four boundaries

¶60

North by	:	Plot No. 17 & 18 site
East by	:	Shop plot site
South by	:	40 Feet wide East-West Road
West by	:	Plot No. 11 site

¶61

Within these

¶62

East to West Northern side	60 Feet
East to West Southern side	60 Feet
South to North Eastern side	50 Feet
South to North Western side	50 Feet

¶63

Total admeasuring 3000 square feet land and East to West Northern side 40 feet, Southern side 40 feet, South to North Eastern side 40 feet, Western side 40 feet total 1600 square feet concreate house building thereon, above mentioned house adjacent by room in

¶64

¶65

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶66

Ground floor East to West Northern side 13 feet, Southern side 13 feet, South to North Eastern side 9 feet, Western side 9 feet total 117 square feet, above mentioned house adjacent to Eastern side bathroom, Toilet, East to West Northern side 17 feet, southern side 17feet, South to North Eastern side 15 feet, Western size 15 feet total measurement 255 square feet, above mentioned house front side portico East to West Northern side 19feet, Southern side 19 feet, South to North Eastern side 10 feet, Western side 10feet total measuring 190 square feet, above mentioned house first floor East to West Northern side 20 feet, Southern side 20 feet, South to North Eastern side 30 feet, Western side 30 feet total measuring 600 square feet concrete house, adjacent to above mentioned house first floor room East to West Northern side 13 feet, Southern side 13 feet, South to North Eastern side 9 feet, Western side 9 feet to total measuring 117 square feet, adjacent to above mentioned house ground floor asbestos East to West Northern side 10 feet, Southern side 10 feet, South to North Eastern side 20 feet, Western side 20 feet total measuring 200 square feet, including door, windows, bore well, 3 H.P. Motor, all other amenities, Electricity connection with deposit, compound wall, thereon.

¶67

Above mentioned land situated in sub division patta No. 4 Re Surey No. 7/1B1A1. Above mentioned house door No. 4-14-9, Tax No. 115/003/04532, Electricity connection No. 0501501738.

¶68

List of Documents filed by the Applicants:

¶69

Sl.No.	Date	Documents particulars
1.	08.03.2019	Sanction letter issued by the Bank
2.	18.12.2023	Order of the District Consumer Commission in C.C. No. 47 of 2023
3.	23.04.2025	Demand Notice u/s 13(2)
4.	16.05.2025	The Applicant’s reply / objection to the Demand Notice
5.	27.06.2025	Rejoinder issued by the 1^st Defendant
6.	07.07.2025	Impugned Possession Notice
7.	06.08.2025	Phots showing affixture of Possession Notice

¶70

¶71

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶72

13.10.2025 Possession Notice

¶73

3. On the other hand, the Defendant bank appeared and filed their Reply Statement along with type set of papers wherein it was submitted that the claim of the applicant is false & frivolous & baseless and the applicant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the SARFAESI Application. Hence the SARFAESI Application has to be dismissed inlimine and save those that are here-in-after expressly admitted all other allegations mentioned in the SARFAESI Application are denied as absolutely false & totally misleading and the applicant is put to strict proof of every one of the said allegations.

¶74

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that it denies each and every allegation, averment, contention, and inference contained in the Securitisation Application, except those which are specifically admitted herein.

¶75

The 1^st Defendant Bank further submitted that the present Securitisation Application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine .

¶76

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the present Securitisation Application was originally filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 07.07.2025. Subsequently, the Applicant amended the Securitisation Application to challenge the Possession Notice dated 13.10.2025. It is submitted that the subsequent Possession Notice was issued only to rectify procedural aspects, if any, and such issuance does not vitiate the SARFAESI proceedings. It is well settled that the law permits the secured creditor to cure procedural defects and proceed afresh in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the

¶77

¶78

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶79

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The service, affixture, and publication of the Possession Notice dated 13.10.2025 were duly effected in strict compliance with the statutory requirements.

¶80

It is further submitted that the Securitisation Application are partly admitted and otherwise denied. It is admitted that the Applicant and her husband approached the Respondent Bank and availed a Housing Loan of Rs.31,00,000/- on 15.03.2019 after executing the necessary loan and security documents. However, the allegation that the Bank obtained signatures on blank papers or pre-filled forms and kept the borrowers unaware of the transaction is wholly false, baseless, imaginary, and raised only as an afterthought.

¶81

The 1^st Defendant Bank submited that the Applicant and her husband are educated persons who voluntarily executed the loan agreement, mortgage deed, declarations, acknowledgements, and other connected documents after fully understanding and accepting the terms and conditions governing the loan. The Respondent Bank follows strict statutory and internal compliance procedures, and no document is ever obtained with blank signatures. The Applicant has not produced a single document or any acceptable evidence to substantiate such vague and reckless allegations. Hence, the same deserve outright rejection.

¶82

It is further submitted that the sanction of the loan, tenure, EMI amount, and disbursement are admitted, the Applicant has deliberately misrepresented the legal effect of the loan insurance policy. It is submitted that the existence of loan insurance does not automatically extinguish the borrower's liability upon the death of the borrower. The settlement of any insurance claim is governed exclusively by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and is subject to claim verification and approval

¶83

¶84

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶85

by the insurer. The Respondent Bank is only a facilitator and not the insurer. The Applicant has suppressed the fact that the insurance claim was either not admitted or was not settled in full. Consequently, the outstanding loan liability continued to subsist legally.

¶86

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the allegation that payments were made by the Applicant under threat or coercion is false, baseless, and emphatically denied. The payments made by the Applicant after the demise of her husband were voluntary payments made towards an admitted debt and constitute a clear acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶87

It is also submitted that it is admitted that the Applicant had filed a Consumer Complaint and obtained an order dated 18.12.2023. However, it is pertinent to state that the said order has been stayed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No.281 of 2024. Once the operation of the order has been stayed, the same becomes inoperative and unenforceable in law, and no enforceable right can be claimed thereunder. The Applicant cannot rely upon a stayed order to obstruct the lawful SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank.

¶88

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) strictly in accordance with the RBI Prudential Norms upon continuous default committed by the borrowers. Classification of an account as NPA is an internal banking function and is not affected merely because consumer proceedings are pending. The contention that there was "no due" payable is factually incorrect and legally untenable. The outstanding liability is clearly reflected in the Statement of Account. Therefore, the Respondent Bank was fully justified in invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶89

¶90

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶91

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble State Consumer Commission and an interim order of stay has been granted. However, such interim order does not restrain the Respondent Bank from enforcing its security interest under the SARFAESI Act. There is no order of injunction prohibiting the continuation of SARFAESI proceedings. It is well settled that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are independent statutory proceedings and cannot be interdicted merely because consumer proceedings are pending unless there is a specific order of restraint passed by a competent court.

¶92

The 1st Defendant Bank submitted that the Demand Notice dated 23.04.2025 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued strictly in accordance with law. The Applicant submitted objections, which were duly considered, and a reasoned reply was issued under Section 13(3A) of the Act. The Demand Notice was served upon the Applicant by Registered Post, and the postal acknowledgements have been produced in the typed set of papers. In addition, the Respondent Bank caused publication of the Demand Notice in the English daily " The Indian Express" and the Tamil daily "Dina Mani" on 06.06.2025 to ensure transparency and avoid frivolous objections regarding service.

¶93

It is further submitted that upon the failure of the Applicant to discharge the outstanding dues, the Respondent Bank lawfully issued the Possession Notice dated 13.10.2025 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The said Possession Notice was published in the English daily "The Indian Express" and the Tamil daily "Dina Mani" on 15.10.2025 and was also duly affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset in strict compliance with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Applicant has deliberately suppressed these material facts to create an erroneous impression that there has been a

¶94

¶95

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶96

procedural violation. The earlier Possession Notice dated 07.07.2025 had already been withdrawn by the Respondent Bank, and the same has been duly disclosed in the present proceedings in the interest of complete transparency.

¶97

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the sweeping allegations alleging suppression, malice, bias, or personal enmity against the Bank are false, reckless, and entirely unsupported by any evidence. The Respondent Bank is a statutory financial institution discharging its duties under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Every action taken by the Bank has been in accordance with law and is supported by statutory records. Such unfounded allegations deserve outright rejection.

¶98

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the grounds raised in the Securitisation Application are vague, general in nature, and devoid of any specific particulars constituting any violation of the SARFAESI Act or the Rules framed thereunder.

¶99

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the objections submitted by the Applicant under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act dated 16.05.2025 were duly considered by the Respondent Bank, and a reasoned reply dated 27.06.2025 was issued in accordance with law. Section 13(3A) requires the secured creditor only to consider the objections and communicate the reasons for nonacceptance. It does not confer any right upon the borrower to insist that the objections should necessarily be accepted.

¶100

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the Possession Notice was issued by a duly authorised officer, and every procedural requirement prescribed under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was meticulously complied with. The Applicant has failed to produce any evidence to establish the alleged non-service, non-affixture, or non-publication of the Possession Notice. Mere bald allegations, unsupported by evidence, cannot invalidate statutory proceedings.

¶101

¶102

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶103

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that thereafter the Sale Notice dated 20.11.2025 was issued fixing the date of sale as 30.12.2025. The Sale Notice was duly served upon the Applicant and was published in the English daily " The Indian Express" and the Tamil daily "Dina Mani" on 25.11.2025. Despite having received the Sale Notice, the Applicant has not chosen to challenge the same.

¶104

The 1^st Defendant Bank submitted that the Applicant has failed to establish any legally sustainable ground for interference under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The scope of proceedings under Section 17 is confined to examining the legality of the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. The Applicant is attempting to enlarge the scope of the proceedings beyond the statutory framework.

¶105

The 1^st Defendant Bank respectfully submitted that the Applicant is attempting to convert a statutory recovery proceeding into an emotional narrative, which cannot override the express provisions of the SARFAESI Act or the contractual obligations voluntarily undertaken by the borrowers. The entire Securitisation Application, including the amended pleadings, is devoid of merit, unsupported by law or evidence, and is therefore liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶106

Typeset of documents filed by the Defendant Bank:

¶107

S.No	Date	Particulars
1.	23.04.2025	Demand Notice with acknowledgment & Return Covers
2.	06.06.2025	Paper Publication of Demand Notice
3.	06.08.2025	Photos
4.	13.10.2025	Possession Notice with acknowledgment card

¶108

¶109

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶110

5.	15.10.2025	Paper publication of Possession Notice
6.	13.10.2025	Photos of Possession Notice
7.	20.11.2025	Sale Notice with acknowledgement card and return card
8.	25.11.2025	Paper publication of Sale Notice

¶111

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:

¶112

(i) Whether actions initiated by the Respondent Bank in respect of the schedule mentioned property under the SARFAESI Act are illegal, void and contrary to the settled principles of Law?

¶113

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled for relief as claimed for?

¶114

5. Having heard the parties and upon perusal of the entire records, I find that the Applicants availed Housing Loan for a sum of Rs. 31,00,000/(Rupees thirty one lakhs only) from the 2^nd Defendant Bank. The Applicants mortgaged the schedule-mentioned property as security for the loan facility availed in favour of the 2^nd Defendant Bank.

¶115

It is contended by the applicant that initially they were regular in the repayment of the loan amount even after the death of applicant’s husband, she paid a sum of Rs. 13,12,500/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs twelve thousand five hundred only) however, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission has been stayed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Once the operation of the said order has been stayed, the same cannot be treated as an enforceable adjudication for the purpose of restraining SARFAESI proceedings. This Tribunal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, is primarily

¶116

¶117

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶118

concerned with the legality of the measures taken under Section 13(4) and not with adjudication of insurance claims or consumer disputes. The Respondent Bank disclose that the account had become irregular and was classified as NPA on 29.01.2025. Thereafter, the Defendant Bank issued a Demand Notice dated 23.04.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs.20,91,688.71 (Rupees twenty lakhs ninety one thousand six hundred eighty eight and seventy one paise only) to the Applicants, which was duly served on them (Bank’s typed set of papers, pages 1 to 14) . I further find that the Applicant has submitted objections to the Demand Notice under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act vide letter dated 16.05.2025 to which Defendant Bank has duly considered the said objections and furnished its reply vide letter dated 27.06.2025. (Documents submitted by the Applicant Page No. 43 to 54). I also find that the Defendant Bank has produced the original newspaper publications of the Demand Notice dated 23.04.2025 published in two leading newspapers, one in English and the other in Tamil. I further find that the Defendant Bank has also produced a photocopy evidencing the affixture of the Demand Notice dated 23.04.2025 on the conspicuous part of the schedule-mentioned secured property on 06.08.2025 (Bank’s typed set of papers, pages 15 to 19) .

¶119

Further, I find that the Defendant Bank has issued Possession Notice U/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act on 13.10.2025 and he has filed copy of the postal AD cards (Bank’s typed set of papers, pages 23 & 24) I also find the Defendant Bank has produced the original copy of newspaper publications dated 15.10.2025 in the English daily “The Indian Express” and the Tamil daily “Dina Mani” (Bank’s typed set of papers, pages 27 & 28) and photographs Xerox copy evidencing affixture of the Possession Notice on the secured asset (Bank’s typed set of papers, page 29) . Thus, I find that the Defendant Banks has strictly followed the SARFAESI procedures, while publishing the Possession Notice to the Applicants. Further I find that the issuance of a fresh Possession Notice after

¶120

¶121

S.A. No. 594/2025

¶122

withdrawal of an earlier notice does not, by itself, render the proceedings illegal, particularly when the secured creditor has proceeded afresh in accordance with law.

¶123

Further, the Applicant has not placed any material evidence before this Tribunal to substantiate her claim that the classification of loan account as NPS was wrong and rate of interest has been charged excessively against the guidelines of RBI. Further, the Applicant has not produced any proof of document that they made representations to the Defendant Banks to furnish the copy of Statement of Accounts.

¶124

In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that Applicant has failed to prove her case and on the other hand, I find that the Banks have followed the procedures for recovery of loan amount under SARFAESI Act as such I do not find any merit in the above SARFAESI Application.

¶125

In the result, SA No. 594/2025 stands dismissed with no costs. Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of. No Costs.

¶126

(Dictated to KKN, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 27^th July, 2026).

¶127

Sd/-

¶128

(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶129

Uploaded on 31.07.2026

¶130

S Shanthi v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Shanthi 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

Punjab National Bank versus Mrs Infomatique Systems

E Theresiamma versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Fashion Creation

Karur Vysya Bank versus Kannan S

P C Krishnakumari versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

V Subbiah versus City Union Bank Limited