BEFORE THE HONBLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –III,

AT CHENNAI

I.A. No. of 2025

In
S.A. No. of 2025

1. Mrs. Lakshmi Prabhavathi A

PAN ABDPL 3775D & DOB 02.10.1959
wife of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

2. M.Sukumaran,
son of Late Munusamy,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

3. Mr.S.Mohanakrishnan,
son of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. ... Petitioners/Applicants

Versus

The Authorised Officer,

Punjab National Bank,
Circle Sastra Centre, Chennai North,
Spencer Plaza, Ground Floor,
769 Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. …
Respondent/Respondent

PETITION TO MOVE URGENT UNDER SECTION 17(7) OF

SARFAESI ACT, 2002, r/w 22(2)(h) RDB Act, 1993

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is

therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to
grant permission to move the application on an urgent basis and
such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit
and proper and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the day of March 2025

Counsel for Petitioner/Applicant

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL –III, AT CHENNAI

I.A. No. of 2025

In
S.A. No. of 2025

1. Mrs. Lakshmi Prabhavathi A

PAN ABDPL 3775D & DOB 02.10.1959
wife of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

2. M.Sukumaran,
PAN AWEPS0366F & DOB 09.06.1954
son of Late Munusamy,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

3. Mr.S.Mohanakrishnan,
PAN DVUPS2757G & DOB29.10.1986
son of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.
...
Petitioners/Applicants

Versus

The Authorised Officer,

Punjab National Bank,
Circle Sastra Centre, Chennai North,
Spencer Plaza, Ground Floor,
769 Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002.
…
Respondent/Respondent

PETITION TO MOVE URGENT UNDER

SECTION 17(7) OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002,
r/w 22(2)(h) RDB Act, 1993

Counsel for Petitioner/Applicant

 CLEAN COPY

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –III,

AT CHENNAI

I.A. No. of 2025

In
S.A. No. of 2025

1. Mrs. Lakshmi Prabhavathi A

wife of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

2. M.Sukumaran,
son of Late Munusamy,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

3. Mr.S.Mohanakrishnan,
son of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. ... Petitioners/Applicants

Versus

The Authorised Officer,

Punjab National Bank,
Circle Sastra Centre, Chennai North,
Spencer Plaza, Ground Floor,
769 Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. …
Respondent/Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF M.SUKUMARAN

I, M.Sukumaran, son of Munusamy, Hindu, aged about 69

years residing at No.39/2, Vanjinathan, 1 st Street, Perambur,
Chennai – 600 011 do hereby solemnly and affirmed and state as
follows.

1. I am the 2nd petitioner in the petition and 2nd applicant in

the above application and as such I am well aware of the facts and
circumstances of the case. I am filling this affidavit on behalf of 1 st
petition and 3rd petitioner herein who is my wife and son. I pray
that that this Hon’ble may be pleased to treat the grounds of
application as part and parcel of this affidavit.

2. The first petitioner/applicant is the borrower, 2 nd and 3rd

petitioner/applicants are co borrowers. The 1st petitioner/applicant
approached the respondent bank then United Bank of India, latter
it was merged with Punjab National Bank, hereinafter called the
respondent referred as Punjab National Bank Term Loan under
United Housing Loan Scheme for purchaser of house.

3. The respondent bank had sanctioned a sum of

Rs.27,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 25.5.2017 under United
Housing Loan Scheme for Purchase of House on Equal Monthly
Installment amount of Rs.45,736 per month for 84 months ( 7
years) commencing from June 2017 or one month after final
disbursement and ending May 2023. The 1 st petitioner/applicant
states that for the loan availed, the 1 st petitioner/applicant has to
mortgage the schedule mentioned property by depositing the title
deeds in favour of respondent bank.

4. The petitioner states that from the date of 1 st installment

to March 2020 the petitioners paid the installment regularly
without any default. It is submits that due to pandemic Covid – 19
has we well aware that whole universe was suffered and
Government Of India and State Government has declared
complete lock down and it was continued up to August 2021 with
little relaxation. The petitioner states that 3 rd petitioner/applicant
who is son of 1st and 2nd petitioner/applicant, who is doing
business in the name and style of Sri Vignesh Foods, due to
pandemic Covid – 19 business was completely collapsed, due to
that reasons the applicants were unable to installments from April
2022.

5. The petitioner states that by letter dated 27.05.2021

appraised the situation to the bank and sought 6 months
moratorium period for payment of installments. The said letter
was duly received, but no reply was given by the respondent bank.
It is submitted that instead of giving some console reply, the
respondent bank had issued demand notice dated 11.06.2021 to
the 2nd petitioner alone claiming sum of Rs.21,92,656.81 as on
31.05.2021 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The said
demand notice dated 11.06.2021 was not issued to 1 st petitioner
who is the principal borrower and 3rd petitioner who is co borrower.
The petitioner states that in the said demand notice dated
11.06.2021 the respondent bank failed to mention the date of
NPA, so therefore the applicants account has not became NPA.
The 2nd petitioner went several times to respondent and asked to
give 6 months moratorium time to pay the installment and to
regularize the loan account. But the respondent bank without
hearing the plea of the petitioners the respondent bank hurried
affixed the possession notice dated 06.11.2021 on 07.11.2021.

6. The petitioner states that the said possession notice dated

06.11.2021 was served only to the 2 nd respondent alone and the
respondent bank failed to serve the said possession notice dated
06.11.2021 to the 1st petitioner who is the principal borrower and
owner of the property and 3rd applicant herein.

7. The petitioner states that the petitioners herein has

challenged the said possession notice dated 06.11.2021 before the
Hon’ble DRT-II, Chennai vide S.A.No.412 of 2021. In the said S.A.
notice was ordered and respondent bank had entered appearance
and filed their counter. After hearing the arguments of both sides
the Hon’ble DRT-II was pleased to allow the S.A. by quashing the
possession Notice 06.11.2021 by order dated 30.09.2022. The
findings of Hon’ble DRT-II in S.A.412 of 2021 follows hereunder

“Para 3 of the order – 3. The respondent had filed their

counter wherein there is no specific denial as to any of
the contentions raised by the applicants.

Para 4 of the order – 4. Heard the Ld. Counsels for both

sides and considered the pleadings as raised in the S.A.
in the light of the documents produced by the
applicants and also counter affidavit filed by the
respondent. The only issue that needs to be gone into
is as to the legality of the measures taken by the
respondent which culminated in issuance of impugned
possession notice.

Para 5 of the order – 5 The applicants in their S.A.

specifically contended that there is no proper service of
demand notice and possession notice on the 1st and 3rd
applicants. This specific contention was not denied
anywhere in the counter other than an evasive denial.
Apart from the counter, no typed set of documents is
produced to disprove the contention of the applicants
regarding the alleged non-service of demand notice and
 possession notice. The Ld. Counsel for respondent had
fairly conceded that because of the amalgamation of
the erstwhile United Bank Of India with Punjab National
Bank, the respondent is not in custody of any of the
documents to substantiate the service of demand notice
and possession notice. It is strange that the
respondent is not even producing the proof of service
of possession notice which is issued by amalgamated
bank. In view of the fact that contentions of the
applicants as raised in the S.A. remains
uncontroverted, this Tribunal is of the view that the
contention of the applicants in regard to non-service of
demand notice and possession notice is vitiated by the
procedural flaws, as there is no service of demand
notice as required under Rule 3 of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules 2002.

Para 6 of the order – 6: In the result, S.A.412 of 2021

stands allowed. The measures taken by the respondent
leading up to the issuance of impugned possession
notice is declared as illegal. It is made clear that the
respondent is entitled to re-initiated the proceedings, if
the account is still NPA and the claim is within
limitation. In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case no order as to costs. All pending IAs stands
closed. Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of the
Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rule, 1983.”

8. The petitioner states that from the above finds in S.A.412

of 2021, the Hon’ble Tribunal has questioned the service of demand
notice to the 1st and 3rd petitioner, the respondent bank failed to
prove by documentary evidence. Hence it is clear case that the
respondent bank failed to service the demand notice dated
11.06.2021 issued under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act to the 1 st
and 3rd petitioner herein. Further the respondent bank failed to
service the possession notice dated 06.11.2021 to the 1 st and 3rd
petitioner herein.

9. It is submitted that the respondent bank has not issued

any possession notice to the applicants, since the earlier possession
notice dated 06.11.2021 was quashed by the Hon’ble DRT-II,
Chennai as stated supra.

10. The petitioner submits that without proper serving the

demand notice dated 11.06.2021 on the 1 st and 3rd petitioner and
more over without issuance of possession notice to the petitioners
the respondent bank has no locustandi to proceed further by
issuance of sale notice dated 15.03.2023 fixing the E-auction on
06.04.2023.

11. It is respectfully submits that the petitioner has

challenged the above said sale notice dated 15.03.2023 vide
S.A.No.199 of 2023 on the file this Hon’ble Tribunal. This Hon’ble
Tribunal while passing interim order has directed the petitioner has
to pay 20% of the amount mentioned in the sale notice dated
15.03.2023, the petitioners has complied the said conditional order
as ordered by this Hon’ble Tribunal and further ordered notice to
the respondent bank.

12. It is humbly submit that the respondent bank after

receipt of notice, they did not appear before this Hon’ble Tribunal
on 04.05.2023 and hence respondent bank was set exparte in the
S.A. proceedings and the S.A. was allowed

“ Ld. Counsel for applicant filed AOS and memo

reporting compliance of conditional order. No
representation on behalf of respondent bank.
Hence, respondent bank called absent and set ex-
parte.

Pare 3 -- In the result, this S.A. stands allowed,

however without costs. Consequently, sale notice
dated 15.03.2023 scheduling sale to 06.04.2023
is set aside. Respondent bank is directed not to
debit the sale notice expenses to the borrowers
loan account. However, liberty be with
respondent bank to proceed further in accordance
to law if the default of the borrower continues.
Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till
this day stands vacated and all other I.A.s if any
pending stand closed.

Hence by setting aside the sale notice dated 15.3.2023 and

they did not file any application to set aside the exparte order
dated 04.05.2023.

13. The petitioner submits that even after of receipt of order

dated 04.05.2023 made in S.A.No.199 of 2023 the respondent
bank did not issue demand notice to the petitioner/applicant 1 and
3, This is clear violation of rule as enumerated under the SARFAESI
Act. The respondent bank without rectify their mistakes in
proceeding under the Act to recovery the dues under illegal
method. The respondent bank is well aware that the Hon’ble
Tribunal will pass conditional order to grant stay of the sale notice
even lacuna in issuance of possession notice or sale notice. The
respondent bank without issuance of possession notice, had issued
sale notices and same was set aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal,
thereafter the respondent bank has issued possession notice dated
23.02.2024 only to the 1st petitioner herein and did not served the
same to 2nd and third applicant.

14. It is submitted that the respondent bank without issuing

demand notice to the 1st and 3rd applicants earlier issued
possession notice, the Hon’ble DRT-II in S.A.422 of 2022 set aside
the issuance of possession notice as stated supra. Therefore the
respondent has not issued any demand notice under section 13(2)
to the 1st and 3rd petitioner. It is respectfully submits that the
petitioners approached the respondent bank for one time
settlement and accordingly respondent bank sanctioned OTS for
sum of Rs.20,00,000/- by letter dated 05.04.2024 as against a
sum of Rs.21,70,327.13. It is submitted that the petitioners has
paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as upfront amount on 28.03.2024 and
balance sum of Rs.16,00,000/- shall be paid on or before
30.06.2024.

15. The petitioner respectfully submit that the respondent

bank all of sudden issued letter dated 28.05.2024 contending that
as follows “ In this regards we inform you that charge on security
/title deeds shall be released to the lawful owner as per bank
guidelines only after receipt of entire OTS amount and the closure
of another account Mrs.Ramani D housing loan, Mrs.Lakshmi
Prabavathy being a guarantor in Mrsd.Ramani Account.
 16. The petitioners were shocked and surprise on seeing
letter dated 28.05.2024 and replied by letter dated 12.06.2024
that the respondent bank has not informed the new condition that
the Mrs.D.Ramani account has to be settled then only this
particular account property will be released, for it is correct on
respondent bank. It is submitted that the under mentioned
schedule was not given as security to Mrs.D.Ramani’s account the
activity of respondent bank is highly improper.

17. Further the respondent bank issued sale notice dated

15.03.2023 and same was also set aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal
in S.A.No.199 of 2023 vide order dated 04.05.2023, again the
respondent bank had affixed the present sale notice dated
06.07.2025 on 07.03.2025 fixing the e-auction on 28.03.2025 and
without serving demand notice dated 11.06.2021 to the 1 st and
3rd applicant the respondent bank has no locustandi to issue
possession notice or sale notice which is clearly violation of law.

18. It is respectfully submits that the respondent failed to

serve demand notice dated 11.06.2021 under section 13(2) of the
Act to 1st applicant herein who is the principal borrower and owner
of the property. The respondent failed to follow the mandatory
provision to serve the demand notice. The respondent bank failed
to serve demand notice dated 11.06.2021 to the 3 rd applicant who
is co borrower.

19. It is submitted that the respondent bank failed to

mention the date of NPA in the demand notice dated 11.06.2021
issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which viates
entire proceedings. The respondent bank failed to appreciate that
without serving the demand notice 11.06.2021 under section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to all the applicants, the respondent
bank has no right to issue possession notice or present sale notice
dated 06.03.2025 affixed on 07.03.2025.

20. It is respectfully submits that the respondent bank failed

to appreciate that earlier the applicants had challenged the
possession notice dated 06.11.2021 vide S.A.No.41 of 2021 on the
file Hon’ble DRT-II, Chennai and the same was allowed on
30.09.2022 by quashing the said possession notice dated
06.11.2021 on the ground that the demand notice dated
11.06.2021 was not served on the 1st and 3rd petitioner.

21. It is submitted that the respondent bank has no

locustandi to affix the present sale notice dated 06.03.2025 affixed
on 07.03.2025 fixing the E-Auction on 28.03.2025 without issuing
of demand notice dated 11.06.2021 to the 1 st and 3rd applicant.
Here in this case the respondent bank has not issued any demand
notice which viates entire proceeding. The impugned sale notice
dated 06.03.2025 affixed on 07.03.2025 fixing the E-Auction on
28.03.2025 and the same was not affixed at conspicuous place of
the property which is clearly violation of rules.

22. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to note

that sale notice should have been published in two leading
newspapers having sufficient circulation in that locality as
contemplated under Rule 8(1) of the Act. The respondent bank
failed to appreciate issuing the impugned present Sale Notice
dated 06.03.2025 under Rule 8 AND 9 of the SARFAESI Act instead
of under section 13(4) r/w Rule 9(1) of the Act. This is a very
clear violation of the Act.
 23. It is respectfully submits that the respondent bank failed
to appreciate that before the issuance of the Sale Notice under
section 13(4) r/w Rule 9 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent
bank ought to have complied with Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act
by giving clear notice of 30 days before the date and time when
the sale or transfer of the secured asset would be made as that
alone could enable the borrower/owner to take all efforts to retain
his or her ownership by tendering the dues of the secured creditor
before the publication of Sale Notice.

24. It is respectfully submitted that even if is for subsequent

sale notices the respondent bank must have to follow Rule 8 (6)
of the SARFAESI Act, before issuance of the sale notices. It means
that even in the case of subsequent sale, provisions of Rule 8 (6)
have to be followed by the authorized officer of the respondent
bank. It is incumbent upon the authorized officer, even in case of
subsequent sale, to comply with the provisions of Rule 8 (6) as
well as the proviso Rule 9 (1). Therefore the respondent bank
failed to comply the Rule 8 (6) of the Act.

25. It is further submitted that such right of redemption

would stand terminated immediately upon publication of the Sale
Notice under Rule 9 (1) of the rules as per amendment of Sec 13
(8) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. It is submitted that the secured
creditor is bound to offer to the borrower /guarantor a clear 30
days’ notice period under Rule 8 (6) to enable them to exercise
their right to redemption. In consequence, a notice under Rule 9
(1) cannot be published or issued before the expiry of 30 days
period. It is submitted that in this particular case failed to issue
notice under Rule 8 (6) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank
without issuing notice under Rule 8 (6) issued Sale Notice dated
06.03.025 fixing the e-auction on 28.03.2025 is bad in law and
violation of measures enumerated under the SARFAESI Act. On
this ground alone the S.A ought to be allowed.

26. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to appoint

approved valuer under rule 2 (d) of the Act and the said valuer
not approved by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the
secured creditor and the said valuer not registered under section
34-AB of Wealth Tax Act 1957. The reserve price fixed in the
impugned notice is not correct, but stain with arbitrariness and
lack of material particulars. The property sought to brought under
auction will fetch more than Rs.45,00,000/- in that area. The
respondent has failed to mention the exact amount due to them
in the impugned sale notice dated 06.03.2025 as contemplated
under Rule 8(6) (b) of the Security Interest (enforcement) Rules,
2002.

27. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to affix the

sale notice dated 22.05.2023 in a conspicuous part of the 1 st
applicant’s property which is sought to be sold which again
violation of Rule 8 (7) of the rules 2002. The authorized officer has
further committed an illegality by undervaluing the property
without valuing the property with approved valuer. The
respondent has undervalued the applicant’s property and failed to
exercise his duty as enumerated in Rule 8(5) of the Security
Interest (enforcement) Rules 2002.

28. Now the respondent is now initiated sale proceedings by

affixing sale notice dated 06.03.2025 fixing the auction on
28.03.2025 under the SARFAESI Act without following mandatory
rules. The petitioners have fair chance of succeed in the S.A and
balance of convenience is in petitioner’s favour. If the respondent
is allowed to do so, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss
and hardship. The schedule mentioned property is residential
property. Hence orders of stay of all further proceedings in
pursuance of sale notice date 06.03.2025 fixing the E-Auction on
28.03.2025 is necessary. The petitioner states that by granting
stay of all further proceedings no prejudice will be caused to the
respondent. On the other hand if order of stay is not granted the
petitioners will put to irreparable loss and hardship no prejudice.
We have made out a prima facie case for grant an order of stay.

29. Therefore the petitioners are forced to file the S.A. to

stay the sale notice proceedings. Hence it is just and necessary to
grant permission to move the application on urgent basis. If the
application is not allowed we will put to irreparable loss and
hardship. On the other hand no prejudice will be caused to the
respondent bank.

In view of the above circumstance I therefore pray that this

Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant permission to move the
application on an urgent basis and pass such further or other
orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus
render justice.

Solemnly and Sincerely affirmed Before Me

At Chennai and signed his name
In my presence on this day of
March 2025 Advocate Chennai
 BEFORE THE HONBLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –III,
AT CHENNAI

I.A. No. of 2025

In
S.A. No. of 2025

1. Mrs. Lakshmi Prabhavathi A

PAN ABDPL 3775D & DOB 02.10.1959
wife of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

2. M.Sukumaran,
son of Late Munusamy,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

3. Mr.S.Mohanakrishnan,
son of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. ... Petitioners/Applicants

Versus

The Authorised Officer,

Punjab National Bank,
Circle Sastra Centre, Chennai North,
Spencer Plaza, Ground Floor,
769 Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. …
Respondent/Respondent

PETITION FOR STAY UNDER SECTION 17(7) OF THE

SARFAESI ACT, 2003 READ WITH 19(25) OF THE RDB ACT,
1993

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is

therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay
of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned sale notice
dated 06.03.2025 fixing the E-Auction on 28.03.2025 pending
disposal of S.A. and pass such further or other orders as this
Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of building on the first floor having
plinth area of 1100 square feet (inclusive of common area) along
with an undivided share in land measuring 300 square feet out of
1118 square feet at Old No.38, New No.39/2, Vanchinathan 1 st
Street, Perambur, Chennai. The land comprised in Old Survey
No.27/1, R.S.No.27/E, T.S.No.49 Part, Block No.2, Siruvallur
Village, Perambur, Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai along with right
in the common passage leading to first floor, stair case, overhead
tank, electricity service connection No.01062018742 within
registration district of Chennai North and Sub registration district
of sembium.
Boundaries
North : Land and building owned by the Settlor
South : Vanchinathan 1st Street
East 6 feet common passage
West Property of Mr.Kathirvelu Mudaliar

Latitude, Longitude & Co-Ordinates

13.111097, 80.236054

Dated at Chennai on this the day of March 2025

Counsel for Petitioners/Applicants

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL –III, AT CHENNAI

I.A. No. of 2025

In
S.A. No. of 2025

1. Mrs. Lakshmi Prabhavathi A

PAN ABDPL 3775D & DOB 02.10.1959
wife of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

2. M.Sukumaran,
PAN AWEPS0366F & DOB 09.06.1954
son of Late Munusamy,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

3. Mr.S.Mohanakrishnan,
PAN DVUPS2757G & DOB29.10.1986
son of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.
...
Petitioners/Applicants

Versus

The Authorised Officer,

Punjab National Bank,
Circle Sastra Centre, Chennai North,
Spencer Plaza, Ground Floor,
769 Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002.
… Respondent/Respondent

PETITION FOR STAY UNDER

SECTION 17(7) OF THE SARFAESI
ACT, 2003 READ WITH 19(25) OF
THE RDB ACT, 1993

Counsel for Petitioner/Applicant

 CLEAN COPY

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –III,

AT CHENNAI

I.A. No. of 2025

In
S.A. No. of 2025

1. Mrs. Lakshmi Prabhavathi A

wife of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

2. M.Sukumaran,
son of Late Munusamy,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.

3. Mr.S.Mohanakrishnan,
son of Mr.M.Sukumaran,
No.39/2 Vanchinathan 1st Street,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. ... Petitioners/Applicants

Versus

The Authorised Officer,

Punjab National Bank,
Circle Sastra Centre, Chennai North,
Spencer Plaza, Ground Floor,
769 Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002. …
Respondent/Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF M.SUKUMARAN

I, M.Sukumaran, son of Munusamy, Hindu, aged about 69

years residing at No.39/2, Vanjinathan, 1 st Street, Perambur,
Chennai – 600 011 do hereby solemnly and affirmed and state as
follows.

1. I am the 2nd petitioner in the petition and 2nd applicant in

the above application and as such I am well aware of the facts and
circumstances of the case. I am filling this affidavit on behalf of 1st
petition and 3rd petitioner herein who is my wife and son. I pray
that that this Hon’ble may be pleased to treat the grounds of
application as part and parcel of this affidavit.

2. The first petitioner/applicant is the borrower, 2nd and 3rd

petitioner/applicants are co borrowers. The 1st petitioner/applicant
approached the respondent bank then United Bank of India, latter
it was merged with Punjab National Bank, hereinafter called the
respondent referred as Punjab National Bank Term Loan under
United Housing Loan Scheme for purchaser of house.

3. The respondent bank had sanctioned a sum of

Rs.27,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 25.5.2017 under United
Housing Loan Scheme for Purchase of House on Equal Monthly
Installment amount of Rs.45,736 per month for 84 months ( 7
years) commencing from June 2017 or one month after final
disbursement and ending May 2023. The 1 st petitioner/applicant
states that for the loan availed, the 1 st petitioner/applicant has to
mortgage the schedule mentioned property by depositing the title
deeds in favour of respondent bank.

4. The petitioner states that from the date of 1 st installment

to March 2020 the petitioners paid the installment regularly
without any default. It is submits that due to pandemic Covid – 19
has we well aware that whole universe was suffered and
Government Of India and State Government has declared
complete lock down and it was continued up to August 2021 with
little relaxation. The petitioner states that 3 rd petitioner/applicant
who is son of 1st and 2nd petitioner/applicant, who is doing
business in the name and style of Sri Vignesh Foods, due to
pandemic Covid – 19 business was completely collapsed, due to
that reasons the applicants were unable to installments from April
2022.

5. The petitioner states that by letter dated 27.05.2021

appraised the situation to the bank and sought 6 months
moratorium period for payment of installments. The said letter
was duly received, but no reply was given by the respondent bank.
It is submitted that instead of giving some console reply, the
respondent bank had issued demand notice dated 11.06.2021 to
the 2nd petitioner alone claiming sum of Rs.21,92,656.81 as on
31.05.2021 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The said
demand notice dated 11.06.2021 was not issued to 1 st petitioner
who is the principal borrower and 3rd petitioner who is co borrower.
The petitioner states that in the said demand notice dated
11.06.2021 the respondent bank failed to mention the date of
NPA, so therefore the applicants account has not became NPA.
The 2nd petitioner went several times to respondent and asked to
give 6 months moratorium time to pay the installment and to
regularize the loan account. But the respondent bank without
hearing the plea of the petitioners the respondent bank hurried
affixed the possession notice dated 06.11.2021 on 07.11.2021.

6. The petitioner states that the said possession notice dated

06.11.2021 was served only to the 2nd respondent alone and the
respondent bank failed to serve the said possession notice dated
06.11.2021 to the 1st petitioner who is the principal borrower and
owner of the property and 3rd applicant herein.

7. The petitioner states that the petitioners herein has

challenged the said possession notice dated 06.11.2021 before the
Hon’ble DRT-II, Chennai vide S.A.No.412 of 2021. In the said S.A.
notice was ordered and respondent bank had entered appearance
and filed their counter. After hearing the arguments of both sides
the Hon’ble DRT-II was pleased to allow the S.A. by quashing the
possession Notice 06.11.2021 by order dated 30.09.2022. The
findings of Hon’ble DRT-II in S.A.412 of 2021 follows hereunder

“Para 3 of the order – 3. The respondent had filed their

counter wherein there is no specific denial as to any of
the contentions raised by the applicants.

Para 4 of the order – 4. Heard the Ld. Counsels for both

sides and considered the pleadings as raised in the S.A.
in the light of the documents produced by the
applicants and also counter affidavit filed by the
respondent. The only issue that needs to be gone into
is as to the legality of the measures taken by the
respondent which culminated in issuance of impugned
possession notice.

Para 5 of the order – 5 The applicants in their S.A.

specifically contended that there is no proper service of
demand notice and possession notice on the 1st and 3rd
applicants. This specific contention was not denied
anywhere in the counter other than an evasive denial.
Apart from the counter, no typed set of documents is
produced to disprove the contention of the applicants
regarding the alleged non-service of demand notice and
 possession notice. The Ld. Counsel for respondent had
fairly conceded that because of the amalgamation of
the erstwhile United Bank Of India with Punjab National
Bank, the respondent is not in custody of any of the
documents to substantiate the service of demand notice
and possession notice. It is strange that the
respondent is not even producing the proof of service
of possession notice which is issued by amalgamated
bank. In view of the fact that contentions of the
applicants as raised in the S.A. remains
uncontroverted, this Tribunal is of the view that the
contention of the applicants in regard to non-service of
demand notice and possession notice is vitiated by the
procedural flaws, as there is no service of demand
notice as required under Rule 3 of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules 2002.

Para 6 of the order – 6: In the result, S.A.412 of 2021

stands allowed. The measures taken by the respondent
leading up to the issuance of impugned possession
notice is declared as illegal. It is made clear that the
respondent is entitled to re-initiated the proceedings, if
the account is still NPA and the claim is within
limitation. In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case no order as to costs. All pending IAs stands
closed. Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of the
Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rule, 1983.”

8. The petitioner states that from the above finds in S.A.412

of 2021, the Hon’ble Tribunal has questioned the service of demand
notice to the 1st and 3rd petitioner, the respondent bank failed to
prove by documentary evidence. Hence it is clear case that the
respondent bank failed to service the demand notice dated
11.06.2021 issued under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act to the 1 st
and 3rd petitioner herein. Further the respondent bank failed to
service the possession notice dated 06.11.2021 to the 1 st and 3rd
petitioner herein.

9. It is submitted that the respondent bank has not issued

any possession notice to the applicants, since the earlier possession
notice dated 06.11.2021 was quashed by the Hon’ble DRT-II,
Chennai as stated supra.

10. The petitioner submits that without proper serving the

demand notice dated 11.06.2021 on the 1 st and 3rd petitioner and
more over without issuance of possession notice to the petitioners
the respondent bank has no locustandi to proceed further by
issuance of sale notice dated 15.03.2023 fixing the E-auction on
06.04.2023.

11. It is respectfully submits that the petitioner has

challenged the above said sale notice dated 15.03.2023 vide
S.A.No.199 of 2023 on the file this Hon’ble Tribunal. This Hon’ble
Tribunal while passing interim order has directed the petitioner has
to pay 20% of the amount mentioned in the sale notice dated
15.03.2023, the petitioners has complied the said conditional order
as ordered by this Hon’ble Tribunal and further ordered notice to
the respondent bank.

12. It is humbly submit that the respondent bank after

receipt of notice, they did not appear before this Hon’ble Tribunal
on 04.05.2023 and hence respondent bank was set exparte in the
S.A. proceedings and the S.A. was allowed

“ Ld. Counsel for applicant filed AOS and memo

reporting compliance of conditional order. No
representation on behalf of respondent bank.
Hence, respondent bank called absent and set ex-
parte.

Pare 3 -- In the result, this S.A. stands allowed,

however without costs. Consequently, sale notice
dated 15.03.2023 scheduling sale to 06.04.2023
is set aside. Respondent bank is directed not to
debit the sale notice expenses to the borrowers
loan account. However, liberty be with
respondent bank to proceed further in accordance
to law if the default of the borrower continues.
Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till
this day stands vacated and all other I.A.s if any
pending stand closed.

Hence by setting aside the sale notice dated 15.3.2023 and

they did not file any application to set aside the exparte order
dated 04.05.2023.

13. The petitioner submits that even after of receipt of order

dated 04.05.2023 made in S.A.No.199 of 2023 the respondent
bank did not issue demand notice to the petitioner/applicant 1 and
3, This is clear violation of rule as enumerated under the SARFAESI
Act. The respondent bank without rectify their mistakes in
proceeding under the Act to recovery the dues under illegal
method. The respondent bank is well aware that the Hon’ble
Tribunal will pass conditional order to grant stay of the sale notice
even lacuna in issuance of possession notice or sale notice. The
respondent bank without issuance of possession notice, had issued
sale notices and same was set aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal,
thereafter the respondent bank has issued possession notice dated
23.02.2024 only to the 1st petitioner herein and did not served the
same to 2nd and third applicant.

14. It is submitted that the respondent bank without issuing

demand notice to the 1st and 3rd applicants earlier issued
possession notice, the Hon’ble DRT-II in S.A.422 of 2022 set aside
the issuance of possession notice as stated supra. Therefore the
respondent has not issued any demand notice under section 13(2)
to the 1st and 3rd petitioner. It is respectfully submits that the
petitioners approached the respondent bank for one time
settlement and accordingly respondent bank sanctioned OTS for
sum of Rs.20,00,000/- by letter dated 05.04.2024 as against a
sum of Rs.21,70,327.13. It is submitted that the petitioners has
paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as upfront amount on 28.03.2024 and
balance sum of Rs.16,00,000/- shall be paid on or before
30.06.2024.

15. The petitioner respectfully submit that the respondent

bank all of sudden issued letter dated 28.05.2024 contending that
as follows “ In this regards we inform you that charge on security
/title deeds shall be released to the lawful owner as per bank
guidelines only after receipt of entire OTS amount and the closure
of another account Mrs.Ramani D housing loan, Mrs.Lakshmi
Prabavathy being a guarantor in Mrsd.Ramani Account.
 16. The petitioners were shocked and surprise on seeing
letter dated 28.05.2024 and replied by letter dated 12.06.2024
that the respondent bank has not informed the new condition that
the Mrs.D.Ramani account has to be settled then only this
particular account property will be released, for it is correct on
respondent bank. It is submitted that the under mentioned
schedule was not given as security to Mrs.D.Ramani’s account the
activity of respondent bank is highly improper.

17. Further the respondent bank issued sale notice dated

15.03.2023 and same was also set aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal
in S.A.No.199 of 2023 vide order dated 04.05.2023, again the
respondent bank had affixed the present sale notice dated
06.07.2025 on 07.03.2025 fixing the e-auction on 28.03.2025 and
without serving demand notice dated 11.06.2021 to the 1 st and
3rd applicant the respondent bank has no locustandi to issue
possession notice or sale notice which is clearly violation of law.

18. It is respectfully submits that the respondent failed to

serve demand notice dated 11.06.2021 under section 13(2) of the
Act to 1st applicant herein who is the principal borrower and owner
of the property. The respondent failed to follow the mandatory
provision to serve the demand notice. The respondent bank failed
to serve demand notice dated 11.06.2021 to the 3 rd applicant who
is co borrower.

19. It is submitted that the respondent bank failed to

mention the date of NPA in the demand notice dated 11.06.2021
issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which viates
entire proceedings. The respondent bank failed to appreciate that
without serving the demand notice 11.06.2021 under section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to all the applicants, the respondent
bank has no right to issue possession notice or present sale notice
dated 06.03.2025 affixed on 07.03.2025.

20. It is respectfully submits that the respondent bank failed

to appreciate that earlier the applicants had challenged the
possession notice dated 06.11.2021 vide S.A.No.41 of 2021 on the
file Hon’ble DRT-II, Chennai and the same was allowed on
30.09.2022 by quashing the said possession notice dated
06.11.2021 on the ground that the demand notice dated
11.06.2021 was not served on the 1st and 3rd petitioner.

21. It is submitted that the respondent bank has no

locustandi to affix the present sale notice dated 06.03.2025 affixed
on 07.03.2025 fixing the E-Auction on 28.03.2025 without issuing
of demand notice dated 11.06.2021 to the 1 st and 3rd applicant.
Here in this case the respondent bank has not issued any demand
notice which viates entire proceeding. The impugned sale notice
dated 06.03.2025 affixed on 07.03.2025 fixing the E-Auction on
28.03.2025 and the same was not affixed at conspicuous place of
the property which is clearly violation of rules.

22. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to note

that sale notice should have been published in two leading
newspapers having sufficient circulation in that locality as
contemplated under Rule 8(1) of the Act. The respondent bank
failed to appreciate issuing the impugned present Sale Notice
dated 06.03.2025 under Rule 8 AND 9 of the SARFAESI Act instead
of under section 13(4) r/w Rule 9(1) of the Act. This is a very
clear violation of the Act.
 23. It is respectfully submits that the respondent bank failed
to appreciate that before the issuance of the Sale Notice under
section 13(4) r/w Rule 9 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent
bank ought to have complied with Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act
by giving clear notice of 30 days before the date and time when
the sale or transfer of the secured asset would be made as that
alone could enable the borrower/owner to take all efforts to retain
his or her ownership by tendering the dues of the secured creditor
before the publication of Sale Notice.

24. It is respectfully submitted that even if is for subsequent

sale notices the respondent bank must have to follow Rule 8 (6)
of the SARFAESI Act, before issuance of the sale notices. It means
that even in the case of subsequent sale, provisions of Rule 8 (6)
have to be followed by the authorized officer of the respondent
bank. It is incumbent upon the authorized officer, even in case of
subsequent sale, to comply with the provisions of Rule 8 (6) as
well as the proviso Rule 9 (1). Therefore the respondent bank
failed to comply the Rule 8 (6) of the Act.

25. It is further submitted that such right of redemption

would stand terminated immediately upon publication of the Sale
Notice under Rule 9 (1) of the rules as per amendment of Sec 13
(8) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. It is submitted that the secured
creditor is bound to offer to the borrower /guarantor a clear 30
days’ notice period under Rule 8 (6) to enable them to exercise
their right to redemption. In consequence, a notice under Rule 9
(1) cannot be published or issued before the expiry of 30 days
period. It is submitted that in this particular case failed to issue
notice under Rule 8 (6) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank
without issuing notice under Rule 8 (6) issued Sale Notice dated
06.03.025 fixing the e-auction on 28.03.2025 is bad in law and
violation of measures enumerated under the SARFAESI Act. On
this ground alone the S.A ought to be allowed.

26. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to appoint

approved valuer under rule 2 (d) of the Act and the said valuer
not approved by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the
secured creditor and the said valuer not registered under section
34-AB of Wealth Tax Act 1957. The reserve price fixed in the
impugned notice is not correct, but stain with arbitrariness and
lack of material particulars. The property sought to brought under
auction will fetch more than Rs.45,00,000/- in that area. The
respondent has failed to mention the exact amount due to them
in the impugned sale notice dated 06.03.2025 as contemplated
under Rule 8(6) (b) of the Security Interest (enforcement) Rules,
2002.

27. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to affix the

sale notice dated 22.05.2023 in a conspicuous part of the 1 st
applicant’s property which is sought to be sold which again
violation of Rule 8 (7) of the rules 2002. The authorized officer has
further committed an illegality by undervaluing the property
without valuing the property with approved valuer. The
respondent has undervalued the applicant’s property and failed to
exercise his duty as enumerated in Rule 8(5) of the Security
Interest (enforcement) Rules 2002.

28. Now the respondent is now initiated sale proceedings by

affixing sale notice dated 06.03.2025 fixing the auction on
28.03.2025 under the SARFAESI Act without following mandatory
rules. The petitioners have fair chance of succeed in the S.A and
balance of convenience is in petitioner’s favour. If the respondent
is allowed to do so, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss
and hardship. The schedule mentioned property is residential
property. Hence orders of stay of all further proceedings in
pursuance of sale notice date 06.03.2025 fixing the E-Auction on
28.03.2025 is necessary. The petitioner states that by granting
stay of all further proceedings no prejudice will be caused to the
respondent. On the other hand if order of stay is not granted the
petitioners will put to irreparable loss and hardship no prejudice.
We have made out a prima facie case for grant an order of stay.

29. Therefore, the petitioners are forced to file the S.A. to

stay the sale notice proceedings. If the application is not allowed,
we will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. On the other hand, no
prejudice will be caused to the respondent bank.

In view of the above circumstance I therefore pray that this

Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings
in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dated 06.03.2025 fixing
the E-Auction on 28.03.2025 pending disposal of S.A. and pass
such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit
and proper and thus render justice.

Solemnly and Sincerely affirmed Before Me

At Chennai and signed his name
In my presence on this day of
March 2025 Advocate Chennai