Dismissed

V Prathap and another v. Yes Bank

DRT3 Jun 2026SA/79/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicants' appeal challenging a Section 14 order, allowing the bank's security interest, primarily due inordinate delay and the fact that physical possession of the mortgaged property had already been taken.

What did the court decide?

The IA for condonation of delay was dismissed; the Securitization Application challenging the Section 14 order was dismissed as being time-barred and infructuous due to execution.

V Prathap and another versus Yes Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.79/2026

03.06.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of June, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer IA.No.281 OF 2026

¶7

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 79 of 2026

¶9

Mr. V. Prathap, S/o.Varadhan, No.68, Anumanthpuram, V R Pillai Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600005.

¶10

Mr. Varadhan S/o. Vengan No.68, Anumanthpuram, V R Pillai Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005. ….Applicants -Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer Yes Bank Ltd, Having Registered Office, Kosimo One, Tower -C, 2nd Floor, Plot No. 14, 3,rd. Main Road, Ambattur, Chennai -600 005. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. V. Jai Bharath Counsel for respondent : M/s. KVP. Deepak Raj

¶14

ORDER ON IA.No.281.2026 IN SA.No.79/2026

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 30.07.2024

¶16

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

¶17

Uploaded on 03.06.2026 at 5.15 PM

SA No.79/2026

03.06.2026

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

¶22

The applicant has challenged the Sec.14 order dated 16.10.2023 in C.M.P. No.7199 of 2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.38,86,312/-

¶23

The applicants are the borrowers who had availed credit facility of Rs.37,10,000/- on 26.10.2021 and have deposited the title deeds as security towards the credit facility. It is the case of the applicant due to business loss they could not service the loan and the account was classified as NPA and the bank initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act. The present SA is filed challenging the Sec.14 order dated 16.10.2023 in C.M.P.No.7199 of 2023 passed by the Ld. CJM Chengalpat.

¶24

The applicant has filed the present SA on 30.07.2024, admittedly beyond the period of 45 days as required U/s.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the applicants has filed IA.281.2026 a petition for condonation of the delay 456 days in filing the present SA an affidavit along with the delay application.

¶25

It is contended that the respondent has not served the demand notice nor possession notice however, has obtained the Sec.14 order on 16.10.2023 and the applicant and it came to knowledge of the applicant only on 17.07.2024 after the bank orally intimated about the order.

¶26

Uploaded on 03.06.2026 at 5.15 PM

SA No.79/2026

03.06.2026

Hence, the cause of auction arouse only on 17.07.2024 and there is delay of 456 days delays in preferring the application. The applicant has not served the copy of the IA to the respondent counsel to file counter, however, respondent bank has filed the detailed counter along with the supporting documents to the main SA contending that the applicants had availed a home loan of Rs.37,10,000/- on 26.10.2021 and had mortgaged the property vide Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Registered as Doc.No.20708/2021 dated 12.11.2021 at SRO Kunrathur.

¶31

As the applicant failed to adhere to terms of the repayment, the loan account was classified as NPA on 13.02.2023 and the bank has issued the Sec.13(2) demand notice on 17.03.2023 calling them to repay an outstanding amount of Rs.38,86,312/-. The Sec.13(2) demand notice was sent by RPAD which is duly served and the acknowledgement cards are marked as Ex.A-2, and A-3.

¶32

The applicant did not make any payment nor raised any objections, hence the bank has proceeded further and issued the Sec.13(4) possession notice on 17.06.2023 which is sent by RPAD and the notice is duly served on the applicants, and published in the two newspapers one in English “Business Standard” and another one in Tamil “Dinakaran” both dated 20.06.2023 and the bank has followed all the procedures.

¶33

Hence, the bank has proceeded further u/s.14 and filed an application along with the affidavit in support of the measures taken. The Ld. CJM after perusal of the Sec.14 application have allowed the Sec.14 application

¶34

Uploaded on 03.06.2026 at 5.15 PM

SA No.79/2026

03.06.2026

vide order dated 16.10.2023 and also appointed an advocate commissioner to take the possession of the property. Advocate Commissioner had sent an intimation notice through registered post on 22.07.2024 to the applicants and to the concerned police officials regarding the execution of the warrant and subsequent to receipt of the notice, the applicant also sent a reply dated 30.07.2024 intimating that they have filed an appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal with a condone delay petition.

¶39

The bank has proceeded further and the reply notice by applicant is at Ex.A-9 and the bank submits that they have taken the physical possession of the property on 04.01.2025 with the help of the police officials and the panchnama is also produced as Ex.A-10.

¶40

The bank had already taken the possession, hence prays for dismissal of the SA. In spite of sufficient opportunity, the applicant did not address the argument on the delay application nor even in the main SA.

¶41

In fact in the delay application, the applicant admits that there is delay of 456 days and in the affidavit filed that there is no explanation given for the delay application and application is filed as a mere formality without any justifiable cause or reason to condone the petition.

¶42

As the physical possession is taken and the panchnama is also produced by the respondent bank and the prayer as sought for in the SA is to set aside the Sec.14 order which has become infructuous, nothing

¶43

Uploaded on 03.06.2026 at 5.15 PM

SA No.79/2026

03.06.2026

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.

¶48

Accordingly, IA.281.2026 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. IA.No.282 of 2026 filed for condonation of delay in re-presentation is also dismissed. Consequently, SA.No.79.2026 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.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

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

¶51

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 03^rd day of June, 2026)

¶52

Uploaded on 03.06.2026 at 5.15 PM

V Prathap and another v. Yes Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Prathap and another v. Yes 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

Canara Bank versus Shefali Flacila

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Ms Bindu Rao Design Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Pratheep

Bank of Baroda versus Anand Amritha Raj

M s Sri Sri Venkateshwar Educational Trust versus Reliance Commercial Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Koilraj