Disposed

Antony Dedeyu Jaya Singh v. Piramal Capital

DRT29 Apr 2026SA/910/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of a Securitization Application challenging possession notices under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant admitted the loan and default but claimed incorrect NPA classification without specifying reasons. The court directed the applicant to clear dues within two months while allowing the creditor to proceed upon default, thus upholding the notices' validity.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to clear liability within two months; liberty granted to defaulters; creditor allowed to continue measures upon default.

Antony Dedeyu Jaya Singh versus Piramal Capital — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.910/2024

29.04.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 910 of 2024

¶8

Antony Dedeyu Jaya Singh, S/o. Alex, No.128/2, MGM Flats, Baskar Colony 2nd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092. ….Applicant -Vs-

¶9

M/s. Primal Capital & Housing Finance Limited Having its registered office, Unit No.601, 6^th Floоr, Amiti Building, Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, Opp. Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kuria (West) Mumbai -400 070.

¶10

M/s Piramal Capital & Housing Finance, Having its Branch office, Kalapathika Towers, Fourth Floor, New No.36, New No.36, Old No.24, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai -600 024. ….Respondents

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G. Sanjeevi Counsel for respondent : M/s. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan

¶13

ORDER ON SA 910/2024

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 07.12.2024

¶15

under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of

¶16

Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short

¶17

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:58 hours

SA No.910/2024

29.04.2026

the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶22

The applicant has challenged the Sec.13(4) Possession Notice dated 01.11.2024 and the outstanding amount due as per Sec.13(4) Possession Notice is Rs.8,25,126.00/-

¶23

The applicant is the borrower who had availed a Housing loan of Rs.8,73,683/-, and applicant had mortgaged property as security towards the credit facilities. As the applicant defaulted in the repayment, the respondent has issued Sec.13(2) demand notice on 22.04.2024 which was dispatched by RPAD at the applicants addresses. The notice sent is delivered as per the tracking report. As the applicant did not liquated the entire liability as demanded nor raised any objections to the Sec.13(2) demand notice.

¶24

The respondent have issued 13(4) possession notice dated 01.11.2024 which is sent by RPAD as per the postal receipt and postal tracking reports, notice is delivered which is produced at pg.25 to 29 reflects the service of the Sec.13(4) possession notice, further, the respondent bank have affixed the possession notice on the property and also published in the two newspapers as per the documents produced from pg.30 to 32 of the counter.

¶25

The applicant though has challenged S.13(4) possession notice has not made out a case for interference of this Tribunal in the measure initiated

¶26

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:58 hours

SA No.910/2024

29.04.2026

by the bank. In fact, the applicant admits the availing of credit facility and the mortgage of the property which was to be repaid 15 years with monthly. Though the applicant has raised a contention that the classification of the account as NPA is not correct has not specified the reasons the reasons for wrong classification or non-compliances of clauses as per RBI guidelines. A mere statement that account is not classified as NPA as per guidelines fails.

¶31

Admittedly the possession notice is received which is challenged in the present SA. After the bank has filed the counter the applicant by way of an affidavit dated 21.04.2026 has expressed the applicant’s to settle the outstanding with the respondent bank within the period of three months from today. Bank Counsel objects for granting three months and further submits if the applicant approaches the respondent for any concession or weaver on the amount and seeks for a direction to the applicant to approach the respondent bank.

¶32

Affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record accordingly the applicant is directed to approach the respondent - the secured creditor within the period of one week from date of order to ascertain the total outstanding due for repayment within 2 months and the respondent to render the total outstanding amount due along with the other applicable charges to the applicant for closure of the account.

¶33

Affidavit filed by the applicant is taken or record and the Applicant is directed to clear the entire liability due within the period of two months from 01.05.2026 and settle entire liability on or before 30.06.2026. It is

¶34

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:58 hours

SA No.910/2024

29.04.2026

clarify that liberty is given for the applicant to clear the entire liability as sought for in two months and further it is clarified that in case of any default in the undertaking given by the applicant, the respondent is at liberty to continue with the measures from Sec.13(4) possession notice dated 01.11.2024 where it stood on the date of filing the present SA.

¶39

The respondent bank has filed documents in support of the measures; therefore, it is concluded that the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 22.04.2024 and the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 01.11.2024 are valid notices issued by the secured creditor in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules made thereunder.

¶40

Accordingly SA stands disposed of in term of the affidavit filed by the applicant. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶41

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

¶42

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 29^th day of April, 2026)

¶43

ANNEXURES

¶44

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶45

Sl.	Description of Documents Documents
No.	No.
1.	Possession Notice dated 01.11.2024. A-1
L	IST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDNET

¶46

Sl.	Description of Documents	Documents
No.		No.

¶47

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:58 hours

SA No.910/2024

29.04.2026

1.	Copy of the demand notice issued U/s.13(2) of SARFAESI Act along with its Despatch proof and service proof dated 22.04.2024.	R-1
2.	Copy of the possession notice issued U/s.13(4)	R-2
	of the SARFAESI Act along with its despatch proof, service proof, affixture and paper publication dated 01.11.2024.

¶52

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶53

All that piece and parcel of land situated in Plot No.293, MM Nagar, VIP Rarity Vadapathi Village, Mamandur, Chengalpattu, Chennai -603 111.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

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

¶56

Uploaded on 29.04.2026 at 14:58 hours

Antony Dedeyu Jaya Singh v. Piramal Capital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Dedeyu Jaya Singh v. Piramal Capital

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

Central Bank of India versus Jebasingh Reagan

Central Bank of India versus v Velu

Rbl Bank Limited versus Ram Charan Company Private Limited

R Narayanan versus Union Bank of India

J J Diamonds Represented by Its Partner Ms Shrenik Chand Nahar versus Bank of Maharashtra

Mrs v K Gheetha versus Jm Financial Asset Reconstrucation Company Ltd.