Dismissed

K Kesavan v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT4 Feb 2026SA/61/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chennai disposed of an interim application for a stay on a Section 14 order under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant, a guarantor facing property auction, sought stay citing procedural lapses, but the court dismissed the petition after a bank sale certificate was already issued and possession transferred to an auction purchaser.

What did the court decide?

The interim application for stay under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act (IA No.200/2026) is dismissed. The matter is listed for counter and hearing on 05.03.2026.

K Kesavan versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 61/2026

¶2

04.02.2026

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the, 4^th February 2026

¶5

SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶6

IA. No.200 of 2026 in SA. No.61 of 2026

¶7

K. Kesavan, S/o. Late Kaliyamurthy Pillai, 2/80 East Street, Vadugakudi, Kodavasal Taluk, Thiruvarur District – 609 501

¶8

.... Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank Manavalanallur Branch No.3/38/B, Main Road, Eravancherry Manavalanallur, Nagapattinam – 609 501 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A. Sam Arul Prasath Counsel for Respondent : Mrs. V. Rajeswari

¶13

ORDER IN IA No. 200 of 2026 in SA No.61/2026

¶14

The Applicant is the Guarantor and Mortgagor to the loan of Rs.8,00,000/- availed in the year 2018. It is contended that the applicant is a daily wages labour and working abroad, and returned to India for celebrating Pongal on 06.01.2026.

¶15

The Applicant does not dispute the availing of the credit facilities and execution of mortgage of the property. The Applicant has challenged

¶16

the Section 14 order dated 12.11.2025 along with the SA and the

¶17

SA No. 61/2026

¶18

04.02.2026

¶19

Applicant has also filed IA No.199/2026 for urgent hearing stands allowed taking the matter on board and IA No.200/2026 petition for stay of the Section 14 order. It is contended that the bank has not followed the mandatory procedures and the applicant’s right over the property is under threat.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the classification of the loan account as NPA is not as per the Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act and the Respondent did not have the authority to enforce the security. The Advocate Commissioner had informed the Applicant’s wife on 03.01.2026 about the Section 14 order and also intimated to vacate the premises.

¶21

It is contended that the bank has not issued any Demand Notice, Possession Notice and Sale Notice, however, has obtained the Section 14 order. The applicant has approached the Defendant requesting some time to make payment.

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Bank is present and has filed a detailed counter contending that the bank has already sold the Secured Asset pursuant to the sale proceedings and Sale Certificate is also issued on 28.02.2025. Hence, the Bank opposes for any stay of the Section 14 order.

¶23

It is further contended that the applicant had received the Advocate Commissioner notice and the Applicant’s wife Ms. K. Nirmala had requested the Advocate Commission seeking for 15 days time to vacate

¶24

SA No. 61/2026

¶25

04.02.2026

¶26

the premises. The respondent bank has granted time and it is also assured that there is no further time will be granted. The bank has also produced all the documents in support of the measures taken.

¶27

Heard both the counsels and perused the records.

¶28

Admittedly the applicant is the Guarantor and Mortgagor to the

¶29

loan availed and mortgaged his property as Collateral security and there is no dispute. Admittedly, the bank has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice after classifying the account as NPA on 01.05.2023. The Section 13(2) Demand Notice was issued on 06.11.2023 and the bank has produced all documents for due service of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice.

¶30

It is the contention of the applicant’s counsel that the Section 13(2) Demand Notice returned unclaimed with a postal endorsement as “unclaimed return to sender” at Page No.15. However, the notice sent to Mr. G. Kalyan Moorthy is duly received. It is further contended that

¶31

the Possession Notice is not served, wherein the RPAD cover at Page No. 21 reflects the endorsement as “Left India Return to sender”. It is seen from the records that the bank has affixed the possession notice on the property. Further applicant admits the issuance of notice by the Advocate Commissioner and the Applicant’s wife sought 15 days time from 03.01.2026 which has admittedly expired.

¶32

When the query was posed to the counsel for applicant whether the guarantor had given any change of address after leaving India. It

¶33

SA No. 61/2026

¶34

04.02.2026

¶35

was admitted by the Counsel that no such communication or change of address was intimated to the bank or to the postal authorities. However, the bank issued the notice to the address available as per the bank records and the applicant’s wife who has available at the property has received the Advocate Commissioner notice and admittedly have also given the letter, seeking time to vacate as per letter at Page No.16 seeking for 15 days time to vacate the premises. Hence, Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) returned as the Guarantor left India, without any intimation of change of address.

¶36

The records reflects that the bank have sold the property and sale certificate is issued on 28.02.2025 which is produced at Page No.27 on 28.02.2025. As there is resistance from the applicant’s family to handover the physical possession, the Bank is unable to deliver physical possession to the Auction Purchaser where there are duty bound to handover the physical possession of the property after issuance of sale certificate.

¶37

Thus, granting of Interim Stay of the dispossession pursuant to a Section 14 order would frustrate the measures taken by the Respondent Bank. It is pertinent to note that the property is already sold and applicant’s counsel contends that they are challenged the Sale notice in Jan 2026 which is not even Numbered before this Tribunal for Adjournment.

¶38

On the other hand, with the sale of the scheduled property, the applicant has also lost the right of redemption and failed to handover

¶39

SA No. 61/2026

¶40

04.02.2026

¶41

the physical possession of the property.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, IA No.200/2026 stands dismissed. The applicant has already filed the counter. List the matter on 05.03.2026.

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated to Deepika, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 4^th day of February, 2026)

K Kesavan v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Kesavan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sivakumar versus Sundaram Home Finance Limited

Axis Bank versus Moorthy

Bank of Baroda versus Rm Enterprises

Mr Saraswathi versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable and Education Trust

Bank of Baroda versus Morigot Food Industry