Allowed

Ms Preethi Medicals Rep By its Sole Proprietor Mr G Ashok and Mrs a Lavanya v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT12 Jan 2026SA/827/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by borrowers challenging a bank's Section 13(2) demand notices and Section 13(4) possession notice. The court upheld the bank's actions, rejecting claims that the notices were barred by limitation or invalidated by partial repayment by one borrower.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Securitization Application and dismiss it upholding the validity of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 26.02.2024 and Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024.

Ms Preethi Medicals Rep By its Sole Proprietor Mr G Ashok and… — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 827 of 2024

¶9

M/s. Preethi Medicals Rep. by its Sole Proprietor Mr. G. Ashok, No.43/93, Annai Indra Gandhi Salai, Oil Mill, Tiruvallur – 602 001.

¶10

Mrs. A. Lavanya, No.3, Kalaivanar Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur District – 602 001.

¶11

…Applicants

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

The Authorised Officer, Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Asset Recovery Branch, No.1, Padmavathiyar Road, 2^nd Floor, (Off Peters Road) Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. … Respondent

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : Mrs. S. Gomathi Counsel for Respondent : Mr. T. S. Gopalan

¶16

ORDER ON SA 827 /2024

¶17

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed 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.827/2024

12.01.2026

The applicant has challenged the Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024 and the outstanding amount due as per Possession notice is Rs.58,24,401.37/-

¶22

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶23

3.1 The 1^st and the 2^nd applicant are the borrower and 2^nd applicant is the spouse of Mr. G. Ashok the proprietor of 1^st applicant proprietor offered their properties as collateral security towards the credit facilities availed. The respondent bank on 11.02.2020 sanctioned Rs.200 lakhs on 26.06.2015 and reduced to Rs.85 lakhs to M/s. Shree Silks and also sanctioned Rs.80 lakhs to the 1^st applicant which was reduced to Rs.50 lakhs in the year 2015 and the applicants’ executed documents executed on 27.09.2022.

¶24

3.2 The respondent bank has issued the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 20.09.2023 to M/s. Shree Silks demanding a sum of Rs.91,17,546/due as on 31.08.2023 classifying the account as NPA on 24.03.2023 though documents were renewed on 11.02.2020 and also issued Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 23.01.2023 and Sale notice dated 31.01.2024 for a sum of Rs.97,77,567.65 as on 31.12.2023.

¶25

3.3 The respondent bank has also issued the Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 26.02.2024 to the M/s. Preethi Medicals (1^st applicant herein) after the loan account has been classified as NPA on 27.01.2024, further the documents were renewed on 27.09.2022 and the outstanding debt due is Rs.51,59,689.87 as on 25.02.2024.

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

3.4 It is submitted by the applicant that due to the multiple loans availed from the respondent bank, the date of default would be applicable to both the loan accounts. The schedule property given as security to both the loan accounts is same and they are successive claims as per the Explanation to O.2 R.2 of CPC which is also admitted in WP No.19567 of 2024 in splitting the reliefs and is in violation of Section 52 of the Transfer property “rule of lis pendens” as there is a pending adjudication on splitting the reliefs.

¶30

3.5 The classification of the loan accounts as NPA is in violation of the RBI guidelines as the respondent bank has to classify the loan account as per the borrower and not as per the facilities, though the date of NPA has to be classified on the same date. It is stated that “Omission of a single material fact will lead to an incomplete cause of action” and the same is in violation of Section 9 the Limitation Act. The respondent has charged contractual, penal interest and MCLR Overnight rates which is in violation of RBI directives based on IRAC norms.

¶31

3.6 It is submitted that M/s. Shree silks has paid an amount of Rs.80 lakhs on 04.03.2024 to the respondent as per Section 31(j) against the outstanding claim of Rs.97,77,567.65, though this Tribunal in SA Diary No.574 of 2024 refused to pass benefit under Section 31(j) and directed to approach the respondent bank. The respondent bank has claimed a sum of Rs.23,16,348.65 as current dues and interest which is more than the outstanding claim made in the Section 13(2) Demand notice.

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

3.7 The outstanding amount due claimed by the respondent bank is barred by limitation as the documents were renewed on 11.02.2020 which was raised before the Appellate Tribunal and the same was refused as it is against the infructuous order. Further, the applicant has made a payment of Rs.80 lakhs and the maximum outstanding due has to be Rs.62,07,236/and the minimum outstanding due has to be Rs.49,12,601/- as per the RBI guidelines.

¶36

3.8 It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme court has granted an Interim Stay on 18.01.2016 which is converted into Civil Appeal No.10115 of 2016 and extended up to 18.01.2025 for 8 years. The applicants are intended to file appeals with regard to the outcome of the present SA and outcome of SLP 833 of 2016. The respondent bank has issued the Sale notice after the issuance of the Section 13(4) Possession notice.

¶37

3.9 In the grounds it is contended that the outstanding of respondent bank is barred by limitation, the demand notice is issued to M/s. Shree Silks and the documents were renewed on 11.02.2020 and not renewed after that date, hence the Section 13(2) Demand notice is invalid. Further this Tribunal is well aware of Civil Appeal No.10115 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme court with a stay granted on 18.01.2016 which is also mentioned that the documents were renewed on 11.02.2020.

¶38

3.10 The limitation is covered as per the Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act and only arises on the Section 13(4) of the Act. Though the Article 137 arises to the present proceedings and the Section 29 of the Limitation act

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

does not arise. The Possession Notice dated 07.11.2014 is not issued on the same day which is in violation of the Judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

¶43

3.11 The respondent bank has classified the loan account as NPA which is in violation of RBI guidelines which the bank has not classified all the loan accounts as NPA. Further the respondent bank has violated Rule 8(1) and (2) and prays to set aside the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024.

¶44

3.12 The applicant has relied on the following Judgments

¶45

i. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in R. Srinivas Vs Karnataka State

¶46

Financial Corporation & Union of India in WP No.14820 of 2008 on 21.10.2010

¶47

ii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transcore Vs Union of India and Another in AIR2007SC712

¶48

iii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lynette Fernandes Vs. Gertie Mathias,

¶49

(2018) 1 SCC 271.

¶50

iv. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovind bhai Dave Vs Asset

¶51

Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. & Anr (2019) SCC Online SC

¶52

1239.

¶53

v. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sagar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Phoenix

¶54

ARC Pvt Ltd. and Ors., 2019(16)SCALE869.

¶55

vi. Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Sri Ramani Resorts & Hotels Pvt

¶56

Ltd Vs the Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore.

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

vii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 2014 (3) SCC 595.

¶61

viii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt Ltd and Anr. Vs. Prudent ARC Limited and Ors in AIR 2023 SC 368.

¶62

ix. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliable Polymers Private Limited Vs Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda on 04.01.2023

¶63

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶64

4.1 The respondent bank has filed a detailed counter, inter alia contending that the applicants are running two business in the name and style of M/s. Preethi Medicals and M/s. Shree silks. Further the M/s. Preethi Medicals is proprietorship firm of 1^st applicant and M/s. Shree silks is the proprietor firm of 2^nd applicant who is the wife of 1^st applicant herein.

¶65

4.2 On 26.02.2015, the 2^nd applicant had availed an credit facility of Rs.200 lakhs for her business and 1^st applicant was granted a credit facility for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs under KVB Pharma Plus Scheme. Further the applicants have availed a sum of Rs.74,98,000/- in name of SS Garments and Rs.50 lakhs in name of G. Ashok which were duly secured by mortgage of the 1^st and 2^nd applicant’s properties in favor of the respondent bank by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.8657 of 2015 in the officer of SRO, Tiruvallur.

¶66

4.3 The impugned Schedule property in the present SA is the 2^nd applicant’s property. The terms and conditions were renewed and altered

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

by the applicants and the credit facilities were renewed up to 19.09.2023. The credit facilities granted to 2^nd applicant was reduced to Rs.85 lakhs on 11.02.2020 and the securities created are valid.

¶71

4.4 Subsequently, the loan account of the 2^nd applicant became NPA on 24.03.2023 as per the RBI guidelines and the total outstanding due amount is Rs.91,17,546/- as on 31.08.2023. Further the respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 20.09.2023 to the 2^nd applicant and 1^st applicant (guarantor) to pay the entire outstanding amount due within 60 days. The borrower and guarantor has not made any representation or objection to the Demand notice and the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Section 13(4) 23.01.2024 in respect of 2^nd applicant’s property and loan account which was delivered to the 2^nd applicant.

¶72

4.5 The 1^st applicant loan account became NPA on 27.01.2024 in accordance with the RBI guidelines and the outstanding due amount is Rs.51,59,689.87 as on 25.02.2024. Further the respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 26.02.2024 calling upon the applicants to repay the entire due amount within the period of 60 days and also intimated that if the applicants failed to make repayment, the 2^nd applicant’s property would put up for sale.

¶73

4.6 In fact the 1^st applicant had stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the 2^nd applicant and the 2^nd applicant had stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the 1^st applicant. Further the

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

2^nd respondent has mortgaged her property as common security for the credit facilities availed by both the applicants. Therefore, the respondent bank has classified the loan accounts as NPA based on different business and income recognition of two applicants.

¶78

4.7 The applicants have not made any payment towards the total outstanding due amount even after receipt of the Possession notice, the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued Sale notice dated 31.01.2024 scheduling the sale to be held on 08.03.2024 in respect of the 2^nd applicant’s loan account. Further the 1^st applicant has tendered a Demand draft for Rs.80 lakhs against the total liability of 2^nd applicant loan account for Rs.97,77,567.65 with a letter requested some time for settlement and cancellation of sale notice.

¶79

4.8 However, the applicants have challenged the Sale notice dated 31.01.2024 and filed an SA on 13.03.2024 before the DRT-I in SA Diary No.574 of 2024 which came to be dismissed as infructuous on 27.06.2024. Further, the 1^st applicant has filed a W.P.No.19567 of 2024 on 26.03.2024 challenging the Demand notice dated 26.02.2024 and Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024, the applicants have raised a contention that they had paid more than 80% of the amount after the issuance of the sale notice dated 31.01.2024 which the respondent bank has filed their counter on 17.08.2024.

¶80

4.9 Subsequently, the respondent bank has issued the Section 13(4) Possession in respect of the 1^st applicant’s loan account which is affixed on

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

the property and also published in two Newspapers. The applicants have created equitable mortgage by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 27.07.2025 (SIC 27.07.2015) and the Demand notices were issued to 1^st applicant on 26.02.2024 and to 2^nd applicant on 29.09.2023.

¶85

4.10 The documents were renewed on 11.02.202 (SIC 24.08.2022) and 27.09.2022 and the loan accounts were operated in violation of the sanction, further the liability does not extinguish after the expiry of limit granted by the respondent bank as per the Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The Section 31(j) of the Securitization Act only operates during the period of NPA and the outstanding amount due is more than 20% of the amount due which is also not applicable after the issuance of the Section 13(2) Demand notice to the borrower and guarantor/mortgagor.

¶86

4.11 Further the Security Interest Act deals only with enforcement of security and not with creation or discharge of security interest under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the respondent bank as a secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act and prays for dismissal of the present SA.

¶87

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶88

5.1 Applicant is the proprietary concern represented by Mr. G. Ashok as proprietor of M/s. Preethi Medicals and 2^nd applicant is the proprietrix concern of M/s. Shree Silks, had availed credit facilities from the 1^st respondent bank a sum of Rs.74,98,000/- and the proprietor Mr. G. Ashok had availed a loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. in the name of SS Garments. The

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

credit facilities availed by both the applicant’s proprietary firm are secured by mortgage of properties:

¶93

1^st applicant’s property at Site No.10 and 11, 74 Periyakuppam Village, VGP Nagar, Tiruvallur Taluk and District and

¶94

2^nd applicant’s property at Plot No.6, New Survey No.489/1A/1B and TS No.2 No.74 Periyakuppam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District.

¶95

5.2 The applicants have deposited their respective title deeds and created equitable mortgage over the credit facilities availed by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds which is registered as Doc.No.8657 of 2015 in the office of Sub Registrar, Tiruvallur. The credit facilities availed

¶96

by the applicants were renewed from time to time and finally up to 19.09.2023. The credit facilities of 2^nd applicant were reduced from time to time to Rs.85.00 lakhs on 11.02.2020.

¶97

5.3 It is a matter of record that the loan accounts of 1^st and 2^nd applicants were classified as NPA on two different dates, the 1^st applicant’s loan account was classified as NPA on 27.01.2024 and 2^nd applicant’s loan account was classified as NPA on 24.03.2023.

¶98

5.4 It is specific contention that the account of applicants are classified as NPA on two different dates when the security is common to both the loan accounts. The applicant has specifically not made out a case of respondent splitting up the claim but placed reliance on Order II Rule 2 of CPC. It is pertinent to note that a SARFAESI proceedings is not a civil

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

proceeding before a Court as, the SARFAESI Act is specialized legislation that operates on specific procedures for enforcement of the security interest without the intervention of the court. Further the measure under S.13[4] is to be adjudicated under S.17 of the Act and the cause of action continues till the security is sold and liquidated towards the recovery of the amount due. Hence there is no question of the secured creditor giving up the claim as per Order II Rule 2 of CPC.

¶103

5.5 Order II Rule 2 mandates that a plaintiff to include the whole claim he is entitled to, arising from the same cause of action, in a single suit. The rule seeks to prevent the splitting of claims and multiplicity of suits based on the same cause of action. However, the Rule would not be applicable when the subsequent suit was filed on a different cause of action than that of the cause of action for the first suit. filing a subsequent suit, after the institution of the first suit, on the same cause of action is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, the filing of a second suit on distinct cause of action.

¶104

5.6 In the instant matter the respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act for the enforcement of security available to them. Though there is common security provided to two different loans, the classification of the account as NPA is crucial point of time to take measure. The Respondent has classified the account as NPA on different dates and separate S.13[2] demand notices are issued. Further the classification of account is a per RBI guidelines and classification id done based on the accounts of borrower. One account of the borrower is NPA,

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

then all account of the borrower is classified as NPA on the same dates. In the instant case, the loan account of two borrower is classified as NPA on two different dates which is as per the guidelines. In fact, the applicant has specifically not made clear as how Order II Rule 2 of CPC is applicable in the insatn matter. Hence, the reliance of the same is unsustainable.

¶109

5.7 Subsequent to the classification of the loan account as NPA, respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 26.02.2024 to 1^st applicant M/s. Preethi Medicals and issued Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 20.09.2023 to 2^nd applicant M/s. Shree Silks.

¶110

5.8 It is pertinent to note that the applicants do not dispute the availing of the credit facilities nor the mortgage of the property. The challenge to the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024 is firstly that the claim is barred by limitation, on perusal of the records it is seen that the applicant had availed the loan on 20.06.2015 and deposited Title Deeds on 27.07.2015 and the loan account was renewed vide letter of renewal dated 27.09.2022 and the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 27.01.2024.

¶111

5.9 Though the applicant had taken a specific contention that date of debt due with the claim made by the bank is barred by limitation, the records clearly reflects that the claim made by the respondent bank in initiating the measures within the period of limitation.

¶112

5.10 The measures initiated by the respondent bank is within the period of 12 years from the date of Equitable Mortgage dated 27.07.2015. Further

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

it is also seen from the letter of renewal for the loan account of M/s. Preethi Medicals is on 27.09.2022 and the Demand notice is issued after the classification of the loan account as NPA. The records of the case clearly reflects that it is an admitted fact by the applicants that they have availed open cash credit facility and the loan account of M/s. Preethi Medicals were renewed from 27.09.2022 to 19.09.2023.

¶117

5.11 Admittedly, the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024 is challenged by the applicants is within the period of 45 days. Hence the claim of limitation under the SARFAESI Act would also not come to the aid of the applicants herein and the applicants relies on the Article 132 of the Limitation act where the limitation period is three years, admittedly the loan account of the applicant is renewed on 27.09.2022 and Demand notice is issued on 26.02.2024 which is within the period of 3 years as per the Article 132 of Limitation Act raised by the applicants here in.

¶118

5.12 It is also a matter of record that the 1^st applicant’s proprietor Mr.

¶119

G. Ashok has stood as guarantor to the loan availed by the 2^nd applicant firm M/s. Shree Silks and both of them have defaulted in the repayments towards the credit facilities as per the Terms and Conditions of the sanction. The loan account of the 1^st applicant M/s. Preethi Medicals was classified as NPA on 27.01.2024 and the 2^nd applicant firm M/s. Shree silks account was classified as NPA on 24.03.2023, there is no dispute with regard to the measures initiated by the respondent bank under the Act. Hence the measures initiated by the respondent bank is within the period of limitation.

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

5.13 The Demand notice is received by the applicant as per the Postal Acknowledgement cards produced at Page No.53 of the respondent’s counter. In spite of receipt of the Demand notice, the 1^st and 2^nd applicant did not raise any objections to the demand made in the Demand notice.

¶124

5.14 The respondent bank has issued the notices to the 1^st applicant the proprietor firm represented by Mr. G. Ashok and to the 2^nd applicant who is the guarantor to the loan availed by the 1^st applicant here in. Though the security is common, the loan accounts belong to two different individuals for the purposes of two different business, hence income recognition and asset reconstruction as per the RBI clauses is different in respect of both the loan accounts. Hence the classification of the loan accounts as NPA of 1^st and 2^nd applicant is on two different dates is not erroneous or not against the RBI norms. Hence the contention that the loan accounts were classified as NPA for a common security is not as per the RBI guidelines does not sustain.

¶125

5.15 Further contention that the debt claimed in the outstanding amount due of the 2^nd applicant is barred under Section 31(j) as the second applicant as tendered a DD for Rs.80.00 lakhs against the total outstanding liability of Rs.97,77,567.65 and also requested for OTS settlement. It is further contended that the 2^nd applicant has made payment of 80% of the outstanding amount and hence Section 31(j) applicable.

¶126

5.16 In the instant matter it is an admitted fact that 1^st applicant stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the 2^nd applicant and the 2^nd

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

applicant had stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the 1^st applicant. The applicants had mortgaged their property as common security towards the credit facilities availed by both the applicants and as the applicants has not made any payments towards the outstanding amount due even after the receipt of the Possession Notice and the respondent bank has issued Sale notice dated 31.01.2024 scheduling the sale to be held on 08.03.2024 in respect of the two applicants’ loan accounts and the 1^st applicant has deposited Rs.80.00 lakhs for the total liability of 2^nd applicant and requested time for settlement and to cancel the sale notice.

¶131

5.17 However, the applicants have challenged the Sale notice dated 31.01.2024 in SA Diary No.574 of 2024 which came to be dismissed as infructuous. Additionally, it is seen that the 1^st applicant has challenged the Demand Notice 26.02.2024 and Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024 in W.P.No.19567 of 2024 and raised the very same contention that applicants had made 80% of the outstanding amount.

¶132

5.18 In fact, the outstanding liability towards the 1^st applicant loan account and the 2^nd applicant loan account has to be taken into consideration and the payments made in one loan account cannot be in isolation. The loan account of the 1^st and 2^nd applicant are two different loan accounts availed for two differed purposes and the classification of the loan account as NPA is also on two differed dates and statutory notices are issued to two differed loan accounts. Hence the contention that the 80% of

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

the outstanding due amount is paid by the 2^nd applicant would not come to the help of 1^st applicant here in.

¶137

5.19 During the pendency of adjudication, applicants have filed an IA No.318/2025 to disclose the amount to be deposited to redeem the property. The balance amount payable as per the applicant’s is Rs.51,62,236/- to the loan account. Further the respondent bank has duly submitted the total outstanding due amount in the Loan account of M/s. Preethi Medicals is Rs.49,56,691.37/- and total outstanding amount in the loan account of M/s. Shree silks is Rs.24,49,153.65/- with floating interest @12.5 % p.a, as agreed.

¶138

5.20 It is pertinent to note that the applicant has also replied to the respondent bank’s counter to the IA No.318 of 2025 that current balance outstanding amount is only Rs.40,57,030/- and reiterated the contentions as raised in the present SA. Hence, the total outstanding amount due as claimed by respondent bank are not erroneous and applicants failed to raise any contention with regard to the outstanding amount due, even after the receipt of the Section 13(2) Demand Notice.

¶139

5.21 In the instant matter though the 2^nd applicant has made a payment of Rs.80.00 lakhs only after the classification of the loan account as NPA and the debt outstanding would not get wiped out on tender of 80% of the outstanding amount in one loan account. The Security Interest Act only deals with security interest and does not deals with the creation or discharge of the security interest.

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

5.22 It is a matter of record that the 1^st and 2^nd applicant have received the Section 13(2) Demand Notices issued by the respondent bank in respect of their loan accounts and they have not raised a such contention under Section 13(3A) of the Act and to the demand made there under. As both the applicants did not liquidated the liability within the period of 60 days nor raised any objections, the respondent bank has proceeded further and issued the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024 to the 1^st applicant M/s. Preethi Medicals and issued Possession Notice dated 23.01.2024 to the 2^nd applicant firm M/s. Shree Silks, though the security is common to both the loan accounts.

¶144

5.23 The 2^nd applicant represented firm M/s. Shree silks in receipt of Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 23.01.2024 has not challenged the same within the period of 45 days and the respondent bank has issued Sale notice dated 31.01.2024 to the 2^nd applicant, though the 2^nd applicant has made a payment of Rs.80 lakhs towards the total outstanding amount would not come to the help of the applicant here in.

¶145

5.24 Now considering the measures initiated by the respondent bank in Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024, it is seen that the Possession Notice was served to the applicant M/s. Preethi medicals as per the Postal receipts and Postal acknowledgement cards produced at Page No.68 to 70 of respondent’s counter. The respondent bank has duly affixed the Possession notice in conspicuous part of the property as per Rule 8(1) which is reflected from the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.71

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

of respondent’s counter. Further the Possession notice is also published Possession notice in two Newspapers as per Rule 8(2) as evident from the paper publications produced at Page No.72 and 73 of their respondent’s counter.

¶150

5.25 On perusal of the records it is seen that the respondent bank as a secured creditor has classified the loan accounts as NPA of the 1^st applicant M/s. Preethi Medicals on 27.01.2024 and proceeded to issue Demand Notice 26.02.2024 which is received by the applicant. In spite of receipt of Section 13(2) Demand notice, the applicant failed to liquidate the liability within 60 days and failed to raise any objections to demand notice under Section 13(3A) of the Act.

¶151

5.26 The respondent bank proceeded further in issuing the Possession notice dated 07.11.2024 which is duly served to the applicants herein as per the acknowledgements produced by the respondent, affixed on the conspicuous part of the property as per Rule 8(1) of the Act, published in two Newspapers as mandated under the Rule 8(2) of the Act. Thus, the respondent bank has established the compliance of procedures in initiating the measure under the Act.

¶152

5.27 For the forgoing reasons, the present SA is only to be dismissed upholding the Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 26.02.2024 and Section 13(4) possession notice dated 07.11.2024 as valid notices.

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

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

¶157

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

¶158

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 12^th day of January, 2026)

¶159

ANNEXURES

¶160

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶161

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Section 13(2) Demand notice to Shree silks dated 20.09.2023	A-1
2.	Rs.80.00 lakhs DD paid Xerox dated 04.03.2024	A-2
3.	Section 13(2) Demand notice to Preethi Medicals dated 26.02.2024	A-3
4.	Order in Diary No.574/2024 dated 27.06.2024	A-4
5.	Section 13(4) Impugned Possession Notice dated 07.11.2024	A-5
6.	Postal Cover of above dated 08.11.2024	A-6
7.	Postal Delivery Tracking report dated 09.11.2024	A-7
8.	Letter rejecting benefit of Section 31(j) recorded on 11.11.2024	A-8

¶162

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶163

Sl.	Description of Documents	Document
No.		No.
1.	Letter of sanction of M/s. Preethi Medicals dated	R-1
	26.06.2015

SA No.827/2024

12.01.2026

2.	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 27.07.2025	R-2
3.	Letter of renewal of M/s. Shree silks dated 24.08.2022	R-3
4.	Letter of renewal of M/s. Preethi Medicals dated 27.09.2022	R-4
5.	Demand notice issued in M/s. Shree Silks dated 20.09.2023	R-5
6.	Demand notice in M/s. Preethi Medicals and its proof of service dated 26.02.2024	R-6
7.	Counter filed by the respondent in WP No.19567 of 2024 dated 17.08.2024	R-7
8.	Possession issued in M/s. Preethi Medicals and its proof of service dated 07.11.2024	R-8
9.	Photographs showing affixture of Possession notices dated 07.11.2024	R-9
10.	News Paper publication of Possession notices – Tamil and English dated 09.11.2024	R-10
11.	Statement of Accounts in respect of M/s. Shree Silks	R-11
12.	Statement of Accounts in respect of M/s. Preethi Medicals	R-12

¶168

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶169

All that part and parcel of commercial land admeasuring an extent of 2800 sq.ft., with building constructed thereon in Old SF No.489/1A, 489/2A, New Subdivision No.489/1A1B, Town SF No.2, Plot No.6, Block No.7, No.74, Periyakuppam Village, Tiruvallur District of Thiruvallur within the following boundaries:

¶170

East by: N.B. Selvaraj and Vadivelu Sites,

¶171

West by: Cement Road,

¶172

North by: N.B. Selvaraj and Vadivelu Sites,

¶173

South by: Plot No.7,

¶174

Measuring:

¶175

SA No.827/2024