Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
P CHELLATHAI vs TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED on 11 September 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
R.A(S.A):154/2025
P Chellathai V/S Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd & 2 ors 11/09/2026
Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following grounds and submitted that
(i) the demand notice dated 09.04.2018 is not served on the appellants and no proof of service of demand notice has been filed before the Tribunal;
(ii) possession notice issued under Section 13(4) was not affixed on the secured asset.
(iii) _ In the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the date of demand notice was mentioned as 31/03/2018 and the liability was mentioned as Rs.53,25,558.18p. as on 31.03.2018.
(iv) The current outstanding on the date of filing of the affidavit on 26.10.2022 was not mentioned whereas the outstanding as on 31.03.2018 alone was mentioned. It is a material defect and the material defect was not considered.
(v) The secured asset was not registered under CERSAI as required under Section 23 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. The afore said grounds have not been considered by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai. Answering to these submissions, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the grounds i.e. (i) non-service of demand notice, non affixure of possession notice and non-registeration of the secured asset under CERSAI had not been raised in the securitization application. Therefore, there is no occasion to produce documents in respect of the grounds now raised. Without raising the aforesaid grounds in the securitization application, these grounds cannot be raised for the first time in the appeal. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the demand notice has been served and acknowledgement card has also been received, possession notice has been served and affixure has also been made. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants made payments of Rs.7,38,000/- on 14.02.2019 and Rs.7,38,000/- on 25.03.2019 after the receipt of the demand notice. When the current outstanding is not given, the appellants are not able to ascertain whether these payments have been given credit towards the loan account.
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time get instructions. At the request of the learned counsel for the respondent, post the matter on 05.10.2026. Interim order, if any already granted, is extended till then.
Sd/- Chairperson