Dismissed

J Banumathi v. State Bank of India

DRT17 Apr 2026SA/790/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI application, the applicant sought to quash demand and possession notices issued by the State Bank of India regarding a housing loan default. The Tribunal examined the bank's compliance with the SARFAESI Act, including service of notices and publication requirements. Finding no procedural irregularity and noting the applicant failed to pay a conditional stay or contest the notices,

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application was dismissed with no costs.

J Banumathi versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.790/2024

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI

¶4

DATED THIS 17^th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA

¶6

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶7

SA No. 790/2024

¶8

Mrs. J. Banumathi, W/o. Raja, No. 6/1314-39, RB Disney Home, Mullai Street, RS Nagar, Church Backside, Allampatti, Virudhunagar – 626 001.

¶9

--- Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB) Vinayaganagar Branch, 1^st Floor, No. 8, Ambedkar Road, Madurai – 625 020.

¶12

--- Defendant Bank

¶13

Appearance of Advocates: M/s. A. Manojkumar ---- Counsel for the Applicant Mr. P. Pethu Rajesh ---- Counsel for the Defendant Bank

¶14

This SARFAESI Application was heard in the presence of Counsels for the Applicant and the Defendant Bank and fixed for passing final order before me and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

1. This Application has been filed under Sec.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 by the Applicant praying that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the entire SARFAESI Proceedings initiated by the Defendant Bank ending up with the issuance of Possession Notice dated 23.10.2024 and such

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

SA No.790/2024

¶19

other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶20

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

¶21

The Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is the absolute owner of the property morefully described in the schedule of the Application and for the Housing Loan availed from the Defendant Bank and the Applicant mortgaged the immovable property. The Applicant further stated that she was regular in repaying the loan without any delay or default. Later due to health problem of her husband and expenditure incurred by herself and the family for her husband’s hospitalization due to complicated cardiac problems she could not able to repay the equated monthly installments as agreed.

¶22

It is further submitted that the Applicant was making efforts to regularize the said Housing Loan but the Bank in contravention to the Reserve Bank of India guidelines and norms wrongly declared the loan accounts as NPA on 08.08.24 and issued Demand Notice dated 09.08.24. The Defendant Bank was never ready to facilitate the Applicant to regularize her loan. The Applicant stated that the action of the Defendant was never in consonance to the procedures of law and has always used the act to their convenience. The Defendant Bank issued the Impugned Possession Notice on 23.10.24. The Demand Notice differed in material particulars with the Possession Notice and the Sale Notice. Being aggrieved by the glaring irregularity and illegalities in the Demand Notice and the Possession Notice dated 23.10.24, the Applicant prefer this Application to quash the Demand Notice, the Possession Notice and all proceedings pursuant thereto on the following grounds amongst other,

¶23

Main Grounds:-

¶24

The Demand Notice does not divulge any such details of the amount payable, only a consolidated figure of Rs. 89,84,173/- is mentioned without any relevant breakup is mentioned.

¶25

The amount claimed, as due in the Demand Notice by the Authorized Officer is untenable, bad in law.

¶26

The Possession Notice is based on the Demand Notice which is untenable on the basis to the Possession Notice and the entire action of the Authorized Officer is liable to be set aside.

¶27

As per Rule 8(2A) of Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002, the Authorized Officer has not served the Possession Notice through electronic mode.

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

SA No.790/2024

¶30

The Authorized Officer failed to publish the impugned Possession Notice dated 23.10.24 in newspapers as prescribed in rule 8(2) of Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.

¶31

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶32

In Virudhunagar District and Registration District, Virudhunagar Joint Sub Registration office No. 1, Virudhunagar Taluk, Allampatti Village, on the Southern side of Aruppukottai Road in R.S.Nagar in Old Patta No. 38, Pymas No. 77, later in Patta No. 211 and in New Patta No. 420 in Sy.No. 64, out of total extent of 7 acres 74 cents on the Western side of an extent of 7 acres 64 cents which has been divided in House site plots in which plot no. 22 to 25 totalling to an extent of 29.48 cents in which in Plot No. 24, Northern portion out of an extent of 1200 square feet (EastWest 40 feet and North-South 30 feet) and in Plot No. 25 Western portion an extent of 300 square feet (East-West 10 feet and North-South 30 feet) both totaling to an extent of 1500 square feet i.e., 3.44 cents (1200 sqs.ft. land area+300 sq.ft. pathway). House site within the following four boundaries:

¶33

North : House site in Plot No. 20

¶34

East : The Western portion of Plot No. 25 which is part of the 20 feet width North-South Common Pathway South : The Southern portion of house site Plot No. 24 West : The Northern portion of House site Plot No. 23

¶35

Within these boundaries including the 10 feet land left over for the 20 feet common pathway on the Eastern side measuring about 50 feet East-West on either Northern and Southern sides and about 30 feet North-South on either Eastern and Western sides totaling to an extent of 1500 square feet i.e., 139.353 square meter. As per sub-division the said property is situated in Survey No. 64/1A2A and presently in Patta No. 1176 in Survey No. 64/28 of an extent of 0.01.11 Hectare with residential buildings bearing Door No. 6/1314-39, 6/1314-39A, 6/1314-39-B, 6/1314-39-C.

¶36

The property is situated within the limits of the Kooraikundu Village Panchayat under the Virudhunagar Panchayat Union.

¶37

The Applicant has submitted the following List of documents in support of his claim in the SA, which are as follows:

¶38

S.No.	Date	Description
1.	09.08.24	DemandNotice
2.	23.10.24	Possession Notice

¶39

3. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Defendant Bank appeared before this Tribunal and filed Vakalat, Typed set of papers & Reply Statement wherein it is submitted that the Applicant herein availed two credit facilities from State Bank of India, i.e. Home Loan for Rs. 86,00,000/- and SBI Suraksha Loan for Rs. 2,73,252/-. As a security to the said loan facilities, the

¶40

Page 3 of 7

¶41

SA No.790/2024

¶42

Applicant mortgaged the property mentioned in the schedule of the SARFAESI Application in favour of Defendant Bank through a Registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 01.11.23. The said transaction and mortgage were duly registered before the Central Registry on 12.07.23.

¶43

It is further submitted that after availing the said credit facilities, the Applicant remain chronic defaulter in repaying the above said credit facilities availed with accrued interest despite several reminders. Since, the Defendant failed to clear the outstanding despite receipt of several communications, the accounts as specified above maintained by the Applicant becomes NPA on 08.08.24. Thereafter, the Defendant Bank issued Demand Notice dated 09.08.24 for a sum of Rs. 89,84,173/-. The said Demand Notice was sent to the borrowers on 09.08.24 and served on 10.08.24, which was also personally served on 13.08.24 to the borrower. Thereafter, the Bank issued Possession Notice dated 23.10.24, which was also sent to the Applicant on 24.10.24, and sent in person to the Applicant on 23.10.24. Paper Publication of the said Possession Notice was published in Tamil and English newspapers on 25.10.24. The said Possession Notice was duly affixed in the conspicuous place of the mortgaged property on 23.10.24 and symbolic possession of the Schedule Mentioned Property was taken by the Defendant Bank.

¶44

It is further submitted that due to the continuous failure in honoring repayment of dues by the Applicant, the Defendant Bank took Physical Possession of the Schedule Mentioned Property on 03.05.25 vide Order dated 04.04.25 passed by the Ld. CJM, Srivilliputhur, the property is under the custody of the Defendant Bank. Further, it is stated that the Authorized Officer acted as per the mandates of the SARFAESI Act. The requirements u/s. 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act were clearly mentioned in the Demand Notice. The Applicant had not sent any representation against the receipt of Demand Notice. Further it is stated that both the Demand Notice & Possession Notice have issued with all necessary due diligence in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Further, issuance of the Possession Notice through electronic mode as per Rule 8(2A) is only optional and not mandatory in nature. Paper Publication of the Possession Notice are made in both English & Tamil dailies.

¶45

It is further submitted that the issuance and receipt of the Demand Notice and Possession Notice was not disputed by the Applicant and the Applicant herself had enclosed the said notices in her typed set of papers. Moreover, there are no discrepancies in the statutory notices issued by the Defendant Bank. There are no merits in the SARFAESI Application filed by the Applicant. Hence, viewed from all the angle of fact and law the present SARFAESI Application is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Hence,

¶46

Page 4 of 7

¶47

SA No.790/2024

¶48

it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above Application with exemplary cost and thus render justice.

¶49

Typed set of papers filed by the Defendant Bank

¶50

Sl.No.	Particulars
1	Demand Notice, Postal receipt, AD Card and postal tracking
2	Possession Notice,Postal receipt,ADCard
3	Photograph showing the affixture of Possession Noticeinthemortgaged property
4	Paper Publication in English and Tamil daily newspapers
5	CERSAI Report

¶51

4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS, THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS: -

¶52

Whether the Applicant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

¶53

5. Having heard the parties and after going through the entire documents available on records, I find that the Applicant availed two loan facilities, one is Housing Loan for Rs. 86,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Six Lakhs only) and another one is SBI Suraksha Loan for Rs. 2,73,252/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty-Two only) from the Defendant Bank. The Applicant mortgaged the Schedule Mentioned Property as a security to the Loan facilities availed in favour of Defendant Bank through a Registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 01.11.2023. The said transaction and mortgage were duly registered in the Central Registry on 12.07.2023 (Page nos. 20 to 22 of Bank’s typed set of papers).

¶54

I find that initially, the Applicant was regular in repayment of loan amount, however, due to health problem of her husband who was suffering with complicated cardiac problems, she could not able to repay the equated monthly installments as agreed. Hence, the Defendant Bank has classified the Applicant’s loan account as NPA on 08.08.2024. Thereafter, the Defendant Bank has issued Demand Notice dated 09.08.2024 u/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 89,84,173/- (Rupees Eighty-Nine Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand One Hundred and Seventy-Three only) to the Applicant, which was

¶55

Page 5 of 7

¶56

SA No.790/2024

¶57

also duly delivered to the Applicant by post. The Bank has filed AD Cards, postal receipts and postal tracking (page nos. 5 to 9 of Bank’s typed set of papers) for having delivered the Demand Notice to the Applicant. The Applicant claimed that the Defendant Bank has given only consolidated figure of Rs. 89,84,173/- without any relevant breakup in the Demand Notice dated 09.08.2024. However, I find that the Defendant Bank has mentioned the required details in the Demand Notice dated 09.08.2024. I also find that the Applicant has not sent any Objection/Reply to the 13(2) Demand Notice U/s. 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act.

¶58

Thereafter, the Defendant Bank has issued the Impugned Possession Notice dated 23.10.2024 U/s.13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The Bank has filed AD Cards, postal receipts and postal tracking (page nos. 11 & 12 of Bank’s typed set of papers) for having delivered the impugned Possession Notice to the Applicant. I also find that the Bank has filed copies of Paper Publication of Possession Notice in both English & Tamil dailies (page nos. 16 to 19 of typed set filed by bank) & copies of photos showing the affixture of Possession Notice dated 23.10.2024 (page nos. 13 to 15 of typed set filed by bank). I also find that on 05.12.2024, this Tribunal granted a conditional stay order to the Applicant with a condition to pay a sum of Rs. 31,46,000/- (Rupees ThirtyOne Lakhs and Forty-Six Thousand only). But the Applicant failed to comply with the conditional order and failed to prove her bona-fide.

¶59

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that as far as this SA is concerned, the Defendant Bank has strictly followed the procedures in taking Physical Possession of the property as per the Terms and Conditions and I do not find any procedural irregularity on the part of the Defendant Bank, and the Applicant has failed to prove her case. Hence, I do not find any merit in the above SARFAESI Application filed by the Applicant. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the Applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Page 6 of 7

SA No.790/2024

In the result,

SA No. 790/2024 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶64

Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of. No costs.

¶65

Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 17^th April 2026.

¶66

Sd/- (SEEMA SINHA)

¶67

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

Uploaded on 07.05.2026

¶69

Page 7 of 7

J Banumathi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J Banumathi v. State Bank of India

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

R Ramkumar versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) versus M/s Rps Agencies

Karur Vysya Bank versus Dhanalaksmi Wood Industries

Punjab National Bank versus Jds Building Materials

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus S Antony

Mirunalini versus Bandhan Bank Limited