Dismissed

G Bhvana Wife of Mr Guru Abishek v. Punjab National Bank

DRT5 May 2026SA/629/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the bank's recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank followed mandatory procedures for notice, possession, publication, and valuation. Finding the applicants failed to prove procedural illegality, the tribunal declared the Demand, Possession, and Sale Notices valid.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; the Demand Notice under S.13(2), Possession Notice under S.13(4), and Sale Notice dated 25.06.2024 held valid.

G Bhvana Wife of Mr Guru Abishek versus Punjab… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 05^th day of May, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 629 of 2024

¶8

Mrs.G.Bhuvana W/o Mr.R.Guru Abishek, No.10B, 1st Cross Street, Alaggappa Nagar, Oggiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai -600 097.

¶9

Mr.R.Guru Abishek S/o A.Rajamanickam No.10B, 1st Cross Street, Alaggappa Nagar, Oggiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai -600 097. ….Applicants -Vs-

¶10

The Authorished Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra centre, Chennai North, Spencer Plaza, Second Floor, No.769, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶11

Mr.Nagarjuna Tallapaneni S/o Sambasiva Rao Tallapaneni, No. 6-83, Gopalam vari palem,

¶12

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522 626. ….Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. Durairaj Counsel for 1^st respondent : M/s. Rahul Jain, Anand Jain. Counsel for 2^nd respondent : Placed ex-parte on 18.02.2021

¶15

ORDER ON SA 629/2024

¶16

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 30.07.2024 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of

¶17

Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short

¶18

the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured

¶19

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶24

The applicant has challenged the Sale held on 19.07.2024 pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 25.06.2024 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.67,85,187.09/-

¶25

The applicants availed housing loan of Rs.90,000, Rs.17,10,000, Rs.2,85,000 & Rs.5,90,000/- Rs.12,00,000 dated 24.06.2020, 23.12.2020, 12.01.2022, 09.02.2019 to be repaid in 358 Equal monthly installment of Rs.36,953/- along with interest @ 8.50 % pa and the schedule mentioned property of applicant is secured by Equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent bank.

¶26

The applicant repaid a total sum of Rs.15,00,000 as per the loan agreement up to September 2023, however, due to sudden business losses caused by non-payment from customers, the applicant was unable to continue EMI payments within the stipulated time, which was duly informed to the respondent bank.

¶27

The applicant approached the respondent bank for rescheduling of the loan; without considering the applicant’s severe financial hardship, the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the property, leaving the applicant with no option but to approach the Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶28

The respondent bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings with alleged illegality and irregularity, including charging unwarranted interest and penal interest without following the prescribed procedure. Hence the

¶29

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

applicant approached this Hon’ble Tribunal seeking relief against the abuse of power by the respondent bank.

¶34

The applicants submit that the respondent bank failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, thereby violating their constitutional right to property under Article 300A. Hence, the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent are liable to be declared null and void.

¶35

The possession notice was not affixed nor published as per the Act and Rules. Though the applicant that they offered to clear the dues and settle the account after the election; the respondent bank, without considering the request, proceeded illegally without issuing any further notice or following the service requirements under the SARFAESI Act.

¶36

It is submitted that all measures taken by the respondent bank, by issuing demand notice, taking possession, and conducting the sale on 19.07.2024, are illegal and contrary to law. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed SA No.456 of 2024 against the Order in CMP No.1726 of 2024 dated 15.06.2024 before the Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpattu, which is pending before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶37

In the grounds, it is contended that as per Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent is mandatorily required to classify the loan account as NPA in accordance with RBI guidelines. The respondent bank failed to comply with the SARFAESI Act and Rules, as there was no affixture on the conspicuous part of the property. The respondent failed to serve the

¶38

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

demand notice as required under Rule 3(4) of the SIE Rules; hence, the possession notice is liable to be set aside.

¶43

The bank failed to give proper account statement as per banker books and evidence act they have not mentioned due is not correct, and the respondent has not considered any replies to the demand notice, without considering reply to the respondent by the applicant, proceeding further is highly illegal.

¶44

The respondent failed to comply with Rule 8(1) and (2) of SIE Rule, which is against the actual market price so that as per affix court judgement.

¶45

The bank failed to serve the sale notice within stipulated time as per the Act and Rule, failed to affix the sale notice in the conspicuous part of the property as per SIE rules 2002 but the respondent bank obtained photo which is earlier sale notice they may file before the Hon'ble Tribunal, therefore the public auction sale is liable to be set aside.

¶46

The respondent bank failed to value the property in accordance with the Wealth Tax Act and Rule 8(5) of the SIE Rules. The bank failed to maintained proper account statement as per banker books evidence act therefore the sale notice mentioned outstanding amount due is wrong it should be verified strict proof of statement of account therefore the sale is liable to be set aside.

¶47

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

The respondent bank failed to mention the exact extent of the property in the schedule in both the sale notice and its publication, in violation of Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Due to this incorrect description, participation in the public auction was restricted, and therefore the sale is liable to be set aside.

¶52

The Respondent bank failed to note that the applicant has ready and willing to deposit the entire outstanding amount because the property worth about Rs.1,00,00,000/- but the sale notice mentioned upset price only Rs.41,37,000/- which very lower price. Which is absolute wrong and which is liable to be set aside.

¶53

The applicant availed business loan Prime minister Employment Generation Program a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- (Term loan Rs.18,00,000/-+ Rs.3,00,000/-) collateral free-loan but the respondent bank added this property as a collateral which is highly illegal and liable to be set aside. On these grounds the applicant prays to set aside the Sale Notice dated 25.06.2024.

¶54

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶55

The respondent bank has filed the counter contending that the Applicants had availed one Housing loan facility of Rs.36.54 Lakhs, GECL Term loan of Rs.90,000/-, Cash Credit facility of Rs.12.00 Lakhs, GECL Term Loan of Rs.5.90 Lakhs and Term Loan of Rs.17.10 Lakhs, totaling to Rs.72.44 Lakhs from the Respondent Bank.

¶56

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

Subsequent to the availing of the credit facilities, 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 28.09.2023 as per RBI norms.

¶61

In view of non-regularization of the loan accounts, the Respondent Bank had initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the Applicants by issuing U.s.13(2) Demand Notice dated 17.10.2023 under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the outstanding dues of Rs.66,49,338.09/- as on 30.09.2023 payable to the Respondent Bank.

¶62

Thereafter, the Respondent had issued U/s.13(4) Possession Notice dated 03.01.2024 under SARFAESI Act to the Applicants. 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 03.01.2024. The Possession Notice was also published in two leading newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in local Tamil “Dinamani” both dated 07.01.2024.

¶63

The Respondent had obtained Valuation report in respect to the scheduled property from the Approved Valuer for fixing the reserve price prior placing the Schedule mentioned property for e-auction sale. Despite providing sufficient time and opportunity, the Applicant did not come forward to pay the outstanding dues and hence, the Respondent had issued the Sale Notice dated 25.06.2024 thereby placing the schedule property for

¶64

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

E-auction on 19.07.2024. During the Auction, one successful bidder was

¶69

fetched for the property.

¶70

The Respondent bank all the averments made in the present SA and as the respondent have followed all the procedures in accordance with act, prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶71

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of

¶72

the case

¶73

It is manifest from the records that the applicants is the (Borrower) G. Bhuvana and (Co-borrower) Guru Abhishek had availed Housing Term Loan facility of Rs.36,54,000.00, Term Loan (GECL) of Rs.90,000/-, Kariakali Amman Foods (Prop. Guru Abhishek), Cash Credit facility of Rs.12,00,000.00/-, Term Loan (GECL) of Rs.5,90,000.00/- and Term Loan of Rs.17,10,000.00/- totaling to Rs.72,44,000/- from the respondent bank. To secure the credit facilities availed, the applicant failed to service the principal and interest in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sanction letter.

¶74

In fact the applicants do not dispute the availing of the credit facility and mortgage of the properties as collateral security towards the credit facilities availed by them. Due to continuous default in the repayment, the loan account of the applicants was classified as NPA on 28.09.2023.

¶75

The respondent had issued the Sec.13(2) Demand Notice dated 17.10.2023 claiming an amount of Rs.66,49,338.09/- due as on 30.09.2023 along with other charges. The demand notice sent by RPAD

¶76

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

was returned, as evidenced by the postal tracking consignment, which is produced at pages.5–10 of the Respondent Bank’s typed set. The respondent bank has proceeded further under the Act.

¶81

The Respondent Bank issued the Section 13(4) Possession Notice on 03.01.2024. The notice sent through RPAD which was received by the Applicants, as per the acknowledgment card produced at pages 13–15, while the notice sent to another address was returned undelivered, as shown at pages 16–29 and postal tracking consignment which is produced at Pg.30-35, and affixture of possession notice produced at pg.36 evidences due service of possession notice and possession notice is also published in two newspapers one in Tamil “Dhinamai” and another one in English “The New Indian Express” both dated 07.01.2024.

¶82

It seen that sale notice dated 25.06.2024 is sent through RPAD which was received by the Applicants, as per the acknowledgment card and postal tracking consignment produced at pages.43-54. The Sale Notice is published in two newspapers one in English “The New Indian Express” and another one in Tamil “Dhinamani” both dated 26.06.2024 and the Sale Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture which is produced at Page No.55 of respondent bank type set.

¶83

The Respondent obtained a valuation report from an approved valuer to fix the reserve price before e-auction. Though applicant has raised the issue of undervaluation is not supported by any document, not applicant

¶84

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

has produced an independent valuation to counter the valuation of the respondent. Hence the said contention fails. Despite sufficient time and opportunity, the Applicant failed to clear the dues; accordingly, a sale notice dated 25.06.2024 was issued scheduling the auction on 19.07.2024 which is successfully held.

¶89

The respondent bank has established the due compliances of the procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules with supporting documents and have countered all the contention raised by the applicant in the SA. On the other hand, the applicant has failed to make out a case for interference of this Tribunal in the sale held.

¶90

For the foregoing reasons, the present SA is only to be dismissed by upholding the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 17.10.2023 and Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 03.01.2024 are held as statutory notices and the Sale notice dated 25.06.2024 and the sale held on 19.07.2024 as valid measures taken by the respondent bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made there under.

¶91

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

¶92

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

¶93

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 05^th day of May, 2026)

¶94

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

ANNEXURES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶100

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Sale Notice dated 25.06.2024.	A-1

¶101

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE 1^st RESPONDNET

¶102

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Demand Notice under section 13(2) of the act issued by the respondent to the applicant dated 17.10.2023.	R-1
2.	Postal receipts and Online Tracking Consignment issued by the Postal Authority	R-2
3.	Possession Notice issued by the Respondent Bank to the applicant dated 03.01.2024.	R-3
4.	Postal receipts and Acknowledgment card and Online Tracking Consignment issued by the Postal Authority.	R-4
5.	Photographs of Affixture of the Possession Notice by the Respondent dated 03.01.2024.	R-5
6.	Publication of the Possession Notice in English and Tamil by the Respondent dated 07.01.2024.	R-6
7.	Sale Notice issued by the Respondent to the Applicants dated 25.06.2024.	R-7
8.	Postal receipts and Acknowledgment card receipts and Online Tracking consignment issued by the Postal Authority	R-8
9.	Affixture of the Sale Notice by the Respondent dated 25.06.2024.	R-9
10.	Publication of the Sale Notice in English and Tamil by the Respondent dated 26.06.2024.	R-10

¶103

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶104

All that piece and Parcel of the land admeasuring 71091 sq. feet comprised in S. No.416/4A, 415/1A1A, 415/1A2A, 415/1A/2B,415/3A, 415/4, 415/5 & 415/6 of perumbakkam village, sholinganallur Taluk in Kancheepurum Disrict Tamil nadu bounded on the

¶105

North by: 30 feet Road in S. No.416/4A &

¶106

Remaining Properties in S. No.415/1A1A

¶107

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

SA No.629/2024

05.05.2026

South by: Arasankalani Village

¶112

East by: Lands in S No.415/1A1B &415/1AЗ

¶113

West by: Lands in S. No.416/4A & 416/8 &416/9 And lying within the sub Registration district of selaiyur in the Registration District of Chennai South

¶114

Schedule -B

¶115

All that piece and parcel of two Flats in the third Floor of Block No. ED in the building complex known as bollineni hillside Phase II constructed ( vide Planning permit No.9215 & Building permit No.64/2016-2007 in the schedule A property together with 579.69 saq.ft undivided share in the schedule A property comprised in the following flats numbers carpet area super built area and their corresponding undivided share of land (UDS)

¶116

S. No.	Flat No.	Carpet Area In sq.ft.,	Super built area	UDS (in Sq/ft
1.	303 A	376.52	517.50	289.845
2.	303 B	376.52	517.50	289.845
Total		753.04	1035.00	579.69

¶117

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

¶118

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.05.2026 at 11.24 a.m

G Bhvana Wife of Mr Guru Abishek v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Bhvana Wife of Mr Guru Abishek 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

Indian Bank versus Ms Abo Autocom

Ramakrishnan Subbaiyan versus State Bank of India

Yes Bank versus Lavanya Proprietrix M/S Lavan Drug House

Muthuraman versus Bank of India

Sivakumar versus Hdfc Bank

Yes Bank versus Arputhasamy Sebastian