Dismissed

Dr.PrakashKarrun and Dr.Veena Singh v. Idbi Bank

DRT7 Jul 2026SA/828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application challenging a Section 14 order for possession of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that Section 14 powers are ministerial and non-adjudicatory, precluding judicial review before the Tribunal once statutory requirements are met.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application praying for setting aside the Section 14 order was dismissed; interim orders varied thereafter are vacated.

Dr.PrakashKarrun and Dr.Veena Singh versus Idbi Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 828 of 2024

¶8

Dr.Prakash Karrun, S/o. N.Karunanithi, No.7, KSS Nilaya, Batcharya Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai -600 092

¶9

Dr.Veena Singh, W/o. Dr.Prakash Karrun, No.7, KSS Nilaya, Batcharya Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai -600 092. ….Applicants -Vs-

¶10

IDBI Bank Ltd., Retail Recovery, Regional Office, No.37, First Floor, PM Towers, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Smt. R. Aparna. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S. Karpagapriya Counsel for respondent : M/s. S. Parthasarathy

¶13

ORDER ON SA 828/2024

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 21.11.2024 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

¶15

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

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

¶20

The applicant has challenged the Sec.14 order dated 05.11.2024 in C.M.P. No.4132 of 2024 passed by Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.14 order is Rs.1,31,83,453.36/-

¶21

It is the case of the Applicants that they availed a Mortgage Loan of Rs.1,23,00,000/- from the Respondent Bank, repayable over a period of 180 months through Equated Monthly Instalments of Rs.1,30,686/commencing from 29.12.2017. The Applicants regularly and diligently remitted the EMIs in accordance with the agreed repayment schedule. To secure the loan, the Applicants offered their residential property bearing Plot Nos. 15 and 16, situated at Injambakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in Survey No. 264/5, Patta No. 961, as collateral security towards the credit facilities.

¶22

3.1 Due to the substantial financial losses suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Applicants were constrained to avail an additional loan of Rs.23,00,000/- from the Respondent Bank under the Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) Scheme which was repayable over a period of 48 months through EMIs of Rs.85,000/- commencing from 07.09.2021 and they continued to their EMI obligations in respect of both the Mortgage Loan and the GECL Loan up to September 2023.

¶23

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

3.2 However, due to ongoing financial difficulties and unexpected personal challenges, the applicants were unable to continue the payments from October 2023. Consequently, the Respondent Bank classified both loan accounts as NPA on 08.01.2024.

¶28

3.3 Subsequently, the Respondent Bank issued U/s.13(2) demand notice dated 22.02.2024 to the Applicants, claiming an outstanding amount of Rs.1,31,83,435.36/as against the original loan amount of Rs.1,46,00,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the Applicants had repaid a total sum of Rs.88,75,329/- towards the loan accounts up to the date. Thereafter, The Respondent Bank has proceeded to take possession of the mortgaged property on 29.04.2024 U/s.13(4) of the Act.

¶29

3.4 It is submitted that the applicants requested for One-Time Settlement of the loan accounts vide letters dated 14.05.2024, 27.06.2024, 13.08.2024, and 30.08.2024, proposing a settlement for an amount of Rs.93 Lakhs. However, the Respondent Bank failed to consider the Applicants' proposal for a One-Time Settlement, nor furnished the statement of account and did not consider the bona fide efforts to repay the loan dues.

¶30

3.5 Further, the Respondent Bank has proceeded to initiate action against the mortgaged property under the Act without considering the Applicants' representations, the OTS proposals, or the reconciliation of the accounts sought by them. The Respondent Bank has also illegally clubbed the

¶31

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

Mortgage Loan and the GECL Loan and made it a collective debt before classifying the accounts as NPA.

¶36

3.6 It is contended that the Respondents are trying to initiate sale proceedings against the property, which is completely uncalled, as the Schedule Property has been valued at Rs.3,41,64,425/- as acknowledged by the Respondent Bank itself and Technical Appraisal Report dated 25.11.2017.

¶37

3.7 The applicants were shocked and surprised, to know that the respondent filed an application U/s.14(1) and (2) of the SARFAESI Act, before the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, which was allowed by order dated 05.11.2024 in Crl.M.P. No. 4132 of 2024 for taking possession of the secured assets. The applicants came to know of the same only on 20.11.2024 after receiving the Advocate Commissioner’s notice dated 18.11.2024 for taking physical possession of the schedule property. The subject property has been leased out from the year 2019, and a tenant is residing there with minor children and any dispossession would be legally and practically unwarranted and would prejudice both the applicants and the tenant. One these grounds, the applicant prays to set aside the Sec.14 order passed by Hon’ble CJM, Chengalpattu.

¶38

The respondent bank has filled detailed counter inter alia contenting that the respondent bank has sanctioned financial facilities to the Applicants on certain terms and conditions as stipulated in the Sanction Letter dated 23.09.2020, and the liability of the Applicants is as detailed below.

¶39

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

Sl. No.	Loan Account No.	Sanction Amount (in Lakhs)	Sanction Date	Rate of interest	Total outstanding as on 31.12.2024
1	1928675100000772	123.00	29.12.2017	9.80%	1,15,88,989/-
2	1928675100002509	23.00	23.09.2020	8.40%	7,07,114/-
3	1928778000000170	Expenses			29,500/-
				TOTAL	1,23,25,603/-

¶44

4.1 The security documents were duly signed by the Applicants and the

¶45

1^st Applicant has deposited the original title deeds by way of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Document No. 9241 of 2018, dated 06.02.2018, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Neelankarai, and security interest was created vide Security Interest ID: 400022046778, dated 07.06.2018, against the secured asset of the Borrowers. The Respondent has affected the registration of the security interest as mandated under Sections 26B, 26C, and 26D of the SARFAESI Act and are entitled to exercise the rights of enforcement of securities under Chapter-III of the Act.

¶46

4.2 The Applicant was irregular in making payments, and account was classified as NPA on 08.01.2024 in accordance with RBI guidelines. The total outstanding payable by the Applicants in Loan Accounts was tune of Rs.1,23,25,603/- as on 31.12.2024.

¶47

4.3 The Respondent Bank has issued U/s.13(2) Demand Notice dated 22.02.2024, which was sent by registered post on 23.02.2024 and

¶48

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

acknowledged by the Applicants on 24.02.2024, directing the applicants to discharge the liabilities in full within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice, failing which the respondent bank would proceed further under the Act.

¶53

4.4 The Respondent Bank has issued Possession Notice dated 29.04.2024 U/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which was sent by registered post to the Borrowers on 30.04.2024 and the same returned un-served on the Applicants. The possession notice was affixed at a conspicuous place on the immovable property and paper publication in Tamil and English newspapers having circulation in the region was affected on 03.05.2024.

¶54

4.5 The Applicant has failed to hand over peaceful possession to the Respondent, hence the Respondent has approached the Ld. CJM, Chengalpattu, for obtaining orders U/s.14 of the Act. The orders passed by Ld. CJM, in C.M.P.No. 4132 of 2024 dated 05.11.2024 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset and hand over the same to the Secured Creditor.

¶55

4.6 It is contended that the Applicant has filed an appeal U/s.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before this Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Ld. CJM in C.M.P.No. 4132 of 2024 dated 05.11.2024, which came up for hearing on 26.11.2024, and the Hon’ble Tribunal has passed a conditional order, directing the Applicant to deposit 10% within one week; and Equal amount to be deposited within 30 days. The applicant had complied with first part of conditional order.

¶56

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

4.7 The above appeal is filed only an attempt to frustrate the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank. Hence, the respondent bank prays for dismissal of the SA.

¶61

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of

¶62

the case

¶63

It is a manifest from the records that the applicants have availed a Mortgage Loan of Rs.1,23,00,000/- and GECL loan of Rs.23,00,000/- from the respondent bank, totaling a sum of Rs.1,46,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 29.12.2017 and 23.09.2020. To secured the credit facilities availed, the 1^st applicant has executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 06.02.2018, registered as Doc.No.924/2018 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Neelankarai which is produced at Pg.47-53 of counter. The equitable mortgage is registered before the central registry dated 07.06.2018, and the respondent bank had filed CERSAI report duly evidencing registration of the security interest with the central registry which is produced at Pg.36-41 of counter.

¶64

5.1 Admittedly, the applicants defaulted in the repayment, the respondent as secured creditor has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act after classifying the account as NPA on 08.01.2024 in accordance with RBI guidelines.

¶65

5.2 Subsequent to classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued S.13(2) Demand Notice dated 22.02.2024 claiming an amount of Rs.1,31,83,453.56 due as on 08.01.2024 along with other charges. The

¶66

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

demand notice clearly describes the types of loan availed, the nature of facility and the documents executed by the borrowers. Further the description of the properties is clearly mentioned in the S.13(2) demand notice.

¶71

5.3 The Sec.13(2) Demand Notice is sent by RPAD which the borrowers and guarantors have received the Demand Notice as per the Acknowledgement card produced at Pg.23 and 24 of counter. In spite of receipt of Sec.13(2) demand notice as the borrowers and the guarantors did not liquate the liability within 60 days and nor raised any objections to the demand made, the respondent bank has proceeded further under the Act.

¶72

5.4 The respondent issued the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice on 29.04.2024 sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgment, however, the notices addressed to the borrowers and guarantors were returned unserved, as evidenced by the documents produced at pg.28–31. The Possession Notice is published in two newspapers one in English and another one in Tamil both dated 30.04.2024 and the Possession Notice is affixed on the conspicuous place of the property as per the photograph of affixture produced at Page No.32 and 33 of respondent bank’s typed set.

¶73

5.5 The specific contention that the applicants have made multiple requests to the Respondent Bank for One-Time Settlement of the loan accounts, and submitted letters on 14.05.2024, 27.06.2024, 13.08.2024, and 30.08.2024, proposing a settlement amount of Rs.93,00,000/- which

¶74

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

is produced at Pg.17 to 21 of SA Book. Settlement of loan dues under the OTS is outside the purview of this Tribunal and hence, this Tribunal cannot interfere with the same.

¶79

5.6 It is an admitted fact that applicant has not challenged the Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 29.04.2024 within the period of 45 days as required under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. It seen that the respondent has produced the copies of the S.13(2) demand notice and S.13(4) possession notice and its acknowledgement cards for due compliance of the measures taken. Thus, the respondent bank have established the due compliance of the procedures as prescribed under the Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶80

5.7 As the applicants failed to repay the entire outstanding amount the bank has approached the Special Judge/CJM, Chengalpattu in u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon’ble CJM after perusal of the application and the loan documents produced by the respondent bank allowed the S.14 application on 05.11.2024.

¶81

5.8 Thus, it is evident that the Ld. Magistrate on examination of the pleadings in the S.14 application supported by the documents, have passed an order dated 05.11.2024 directing the Advocate Commissioner to take the possession of the property. Though the applicant has filed the present SA impugning the Sec.14 order dated 05.11.2024 passed by Ld. CJM, Chengalpattu has not pointed out any illegality in the measures taken by the respondent herein.

¶82

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

5.9 On the other hand, it is seen that the statutory notices, the Demand Notice dated 22.02.2024 and Possession Notice dated 29.04.2024 are issued to the applicants in accordance to law, applicants have waived right to raise any contention with regard to Sec.13(4) Possession Notice within the period of 45 days. Hence any contentions to Sec.13(4) Notice is barred by limitation.

¶87

5.10 Now considering the challenge to S.14 Order, it is appropriate to mention the declaration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments has held that the power of Designated Court under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, 2002 is ministerial and nonadjudicatory in nature and the process to be followed under Section 14 does not involve any element of quasi-judicial function nor it requires any application of mind.

¶88

5.11 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra has held that Court is only required to verify the affidavit of Secured Creditor filed in pursuance of the proviso to Section 14 and nothing more. The above Bombay High Court judgment has since been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 26.09.2022 in the matter of Balakrishna Ram Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. as under:

¶89

“Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the matter once all the requirements Under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon

¶90

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal”.

¶95

5.12 The Supreme Court in the judgment of Authorized Officer, Indian Bank v D Visalakshi and other, has held that a Chief Judicial Magistrate is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the Sec.14 dated 05.11.2024 in C.M.P. No.4132/2024 passed by the Hon’ble Special Judge/CJM, Chengalpattu is a valid Order.

¶96

5.13 Additionally, Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act statuses that no action taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrate (or any officer authorized by them) under S.14 can be challenged in court or before any other authority. This provision ensures that the authority of these officials in enforcing security interests is final and not subject to further review.

¶97

5.14 Thus, the Sec.14 order dated 05.11.2024 in C.M.P. No.4132/2024 passed by the Hon’ble Special Judge/CJM, Chengalpattu is after due consideration of the application, affidavit in support of compliance of procedures along with documents is an execution Order issued where no adjudication is required. The Order is passed considering the due compliance of the provisions of the S. 14 [i-ix].

¶98

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

5.15 On examination of pleadings and documents produced by respective parties, the Tribunal comes to conclusion that the respondent bank as secured creditor has initiated measures under the Act after classifying the account as NPA.

¶103

5.16 Consequent to classification of account as NPA has issued S.13[2] Demand Notice followed by Possession Notice and have complied all the procedures as contemplated under the Act and the Rules with supporting documents. Thus it is held that the Demand Notice u/s S.13[2] dated 22.02.2024 and S.13[4] Possession Notice dated 29.04.2024 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶104

5.17 For the foregoing reasons, the present SA fails and accordingly 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.

¶105

Sd/-

¶106

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

¶107

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 07^th day of July, 2026)

¶108

ANNEXURES

¶109

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶110

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Demand Notice dated 22.02.2024.	A-1
2.	Letter to respondent bank dated 20.04.2024.	A-2
3.	Possession Notice dated 29.04.2024.	A-3
4.	Letter to respondent bank dated 14.05.2024.	A-4
5.	Letter to respondent bank dated 27.06.2024.	A-5
6.	Letter to respondent bank dated 13.08.2024.	A-6
7.	Letter to respondent bank dated 30.08.2024.	A-7

¶111

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

8.	Order of Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate,	A-8
	Chengalpattu dated 05.11.2024.
9.	Physical Possession Notice dated 18.11.2024.	A-9
L	IST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPON	DNET

¶116

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.
1.	Letter of Sanction dated 23.09.2020.	R-1
2.	Demand Notice Under Rule 13(2) issued to the Borrowers/Guarantors dated 22.02.2024.	R-2
3.	Acknowledgement of the Borrower/guarantors dated 24.02.2024.	R-3
4.	Possession Notice Under Rule 8(1) dated 08.01.2024.	R-4
5.	Acknowledgement of the Borrower/guarantors dated 29.04.2024.	R-5
6.	Affixing Possession Notice – Photographs Rule 8(1) dated 29.04.2024.	R-6
7.	Paper Publication in English Under Rule 8(2) dated 30.04.2024.	R-7
8.	Paper Publication in Tamil Under Rule 8(2) dated 30.04.2024.	R-8
9.	CERSAI Report dated 07.06.2018.	R-9
10.	Order of Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu dated 05.11.2024.	R-10
11.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds registered as Document No.924 of 2018 in favour of Respondent dated 06.02.2018.	R-11
12.	Settlement Deed registered as Document No.2372 of 2010 in favour 1^stapplicant dated 13.05.2010.	R-12
13.	Statement of Account in Loan A/c No.1928675100000772 dated 31.12.2024.	R-13
14.	Statement of Account in Loan A/c No.1928675100002509 dated 31.12.2024.	R-14
15.	Statement of Account in Loan Account No. 1928778000000170 dated 31.12.2024.	R-15

¶117

SCHEDULE

¶118

All that piece and parcel of vacant land situated at injambakkam village, Rajan Nagar, Tambaram Taluk, Now Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in Survey No.264, Patta No.961, Present Patta No.4274, as per patta Survey No.264/5, bearing Plot Nos.15

¶119

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 01.15 PM

SA No.828/2024

07.07.2026

and 16, measuring to a total extent of 2685 Sq. Ft land and building being bounded on the: -

¶124

North by : 20 Feet Road, South by Plot No.17, East by: Plot No.12 and 14 and West by : 16 Feet Road,

¶125