Disposed

Vijaya Babu v. Union Bank of India

DRT2 Apr 2026SA/796/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of a SARFAESI application challenging a Sale Notice. The court held the matter infructuous because the original auction failed, and the new notice issued by the bank fell outside the statutory limitation period for challenging the original measures.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of as infructuous; interim stay order vacated; pending IAs disposed of.

Vijaya Babu versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.796/2025

02.04.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 02^nd day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 796 of 2025

¶8

Mr.R.Vijaya Babu, S/o.Ramalingam, 328, Sathani Street, Kuyavarpalayam,

¶9

Saram, Puducherry-605 013.

¶10

Mr.Camala Cannin @ R.Kamalakannan, S/o.Ramalingam, 328, Sathani Street, Kuyavarpalayam, Saram, Puducherry-605 013. ….Applicants

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Asser Recovery Branch, 168, 2nd Floor, Lingi chetty Street,

¶13

Parry’s Corner, Chennai-600 001. ….Respondent

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.K.M. Suresh Counsel for respondent : M/s. K. Radhakrishnamurthy

¶16

ORDER ON SA 796/2025

¶17

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 20.11.2025 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 creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

SA No.796/2025

02.04.2026

The applicant has challenged the Sale Notice dated 04.11.2025 fixing the sale on 28.11.2025 at 11.00 AM to 05.00 PM and the outstanding amount due as per Sale Notice is Rs.32,35,974.87/-

¶22

Pleadings of the applicant:

¶23

The applicants is the absolute owner of the schedule mention property and running the business in the name of “M/S. RAVIKUMAR TRADERS” and availed loan facility with the Respondent Bank and the applicant also mortgaged the immovable properties.

¶24

The borrower was regular in repaying the loan without any delay or default. Later on due to their ill health and business loss could not repay the interest portion alone and despite of their difficulties and stringent situation they had made several payments.

¶25

Since the borrower could not repay the few loan installments as Per the terms of the agreement the respondent bank has declared the loan accounts as NPA and the borrower had approached the respondent bank and requested to grant some reasonable time for settlement of loan amount.

¶26

The Applicant approached the bank with an proposal for OTS for Rs.32,00,000/- and to show his bonafide the Applicant paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17-09-2025 and further submitted an proposal with date and amount which will be pain in 3 installments, without considering the request made by the borrower the Respondent Bank issued Sale notice dated 04-11-2025 that they have the secured properties claiming an

SA No.796/2025

02.04.2026

amount of Rs.Rs.32,35,974.87/- as 31-07-2025 without following the mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules.

¶31

On these grounds the applicant prays to set aside the sale notice dated 04.11.2025.

¶32

Objections of the respondent bank:

¶33

The respondent has filed the counter contending that the applicants approached the bank for sanction of CVPOD facility of Rs.29.25 lakhs and WCTLE facility of Rs.50,000/- for their business purpose under corporation Vyapar Scheme. The bank has sanctioned the same to the applicant and the applicants had availed the above loan and the applicants are executed all the necessary loan and security documents, the applicants had offered their property as a security with an intent to create an EM for the loans, availed by the applicants on 03.09.2016 and registered MOTD vide Dco.No.27955/2016 on 29.11.2016 before SRO Puducherry.

¶34

After availing the loans, the applicants have not paid instalments property and the account became NPA on 18.08.2020 as per RBI guidelines. The respondent issued Sec.13(2) notice on 14.09.2021 to the applicants which they have received on 18.09.2021, but there is no repayment and no reply and not challenged the same.

¶35

Therefore, the respondent issued possession notice dated 10.03.2022 to the applicants, which they have received on 19.03.2022 and 15.03.2022, but there was no reply. Further, the respondent took the valuation report from the bank approved valuer and issued several sale notice on 04.11.2025 the present sale notice was issued and fixed e-auction on

SA No.796/2025

02.04.2026

28.11.2025. The bank has issued notice to all the applicants and also affix the possession and sale notice on the property conspicuously and also published all the notice in two leading newspapers as per the SARFAESI Act.

¶40

It is submitted that after the sale notice dated 04.11.2025 the applicants filed the SA.796 of 2025 challenged the sale notice dated 04.11.2025 fixing the sale on 28.11.2025, the matter came up on 28.11.2025 and this Tribunal passed a conditional stay order directing the depositing 15% of the amount due on or before 27.11.2025 and 10% of the amount to be deposited within 30 days thereafter, the applicant have complied with the condition order.

¶41

However, no bids were received for the sale of secured asset on 28.11.2025 and therefore, the auction sale could not be conducted. In view of the same the sale notice dated 04.11.2025 has become infructuous as auction was conducted.

¶42

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of

¶43

the case

¶44

Applicant has filed IA 643/2026 an advance hearing petition stands allowed taking the matter on board. Applicant has also filed IA which is unregistered for disobedience of the order contending that the SA was filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 04.11.2025 fixing the sale on 28.11.2025 at 11 a.m. to 05.00 p.m.,

SA No.796/2025

02.04.2026

The applicant has complied with the interim order passed by this Tribunal and the bank being well aware have issued another Sale Notice dated 03.03.2026 fixing the sale on 27.03.2026.

¶49

However, the IA is not numbered and it is seen from the records that the respondent bank have issued letters to the applicant herein that the bank have withdrawn the sale notice and have issued the fresh sale notice. As the prayer in the SA has become infructuous, nothing 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.

¶50

Accordingly, SA stands disposed as infructuous. Interim Order granted stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final

¶51

order. No order as to cost. Sd/-

¶52

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

¶53

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 02^nd day of April, 2026)

¶54

ANNEXURES

¶55

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶56

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	OTS Proposal Letter dated 23.09.2025.	A-1
2.	Payment Proof dated 28.10.2025.	A-2
3.	Impugned Sale Notice dated 04.11.2025.	A-3

¶57

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶58

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Documents No.
1.	MOTD by applicant dated 29.11.2016.	R-1
2.	13(2) Demand Notice with Ack. Cards dated 14.09.2021.	R-2
3.	13(4) Possession notice with Ack. Cards dated 10.03.2022.	R-3

SA No.796/2025

02.04.2026

4.	Photo affixture dated 10.03.2022.	R-4
5.	Publication in New Indian Express (English) dated 13.03.2022.	R-5
6.	Publication in Dinamani (Tamil) dated 13.03.2022.	R-6
7.	Sale Notice with Ack. Cards/ Return covers dated 04.11.2025.	R-7
8.	Photo affixture dated 14.11.2025.	R-8
9.	Publication in New Indian Express (English) dated 11.11.2025.	R-9
10.	Publication in Dinamani (Tamil) dated 11.11.2025.	R-10
11.	Statement of Accounts.	R-11

¶63

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶64

Puducherry Registration District, Puducherry Sub Registration District, within the limit of Puducherry Municipality, Mudaliarpet Commune, village No. 37, Pudupalayam Revenue village, Kuyavarpalayam at Sathani street, a piece and parcel of plot with country tiled brick built house bearing Door No 328, measuring to an extent of East to West 12 feet, and South to North 75 feet Total extent is 900 sq.ft. Comprised in R.S.No.67/3pt, T.S.NO.117/1/A, cadastre Nos. 261 part, 260 part, patta No. 1502, Ward G, Block No.4 with electricity and water service connection.

¶65

Boundaries: North of Sathani Street, South and West of Vendors plot, East of Rajarathinam's house

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

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

Vijaya Babu v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Babu v. Union 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

Arc versus Ssgm Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus R

State Bank of India versus Thirupathi Balaji Tiles Rep By Mrs N Selvi And Two Others

Charles Rajakumar versus State Bank of India

D v K Rathinamma versus Indian Overseas Bank

C Pazhaniraja versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited