Kotak Mahindra Bank vs M/s Madha Agencies & 4 ors on 2 November 2026

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

R.A(S.A):28/2020

A.O., Kotak Mahindra Bank V/S M/S Madha Agencies & 4 Ors 02/11/2026

This appeal is filed against the final order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai in SA 153/2018 on 07.01.2020. SA 153/2018 has been filed challenging the order of the learned District Magistrate/District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur made in RC No. 8931/2015/M2, dated 21.03.2017. This SA 153/2018 has been allowed primarily on the ground that the existence of the building measuring 4321 sq.ft. on the secured asset is not referred in MODT document and therefore, no security interest was created in respect of the building, but, it was created only in respect of the land. The perusal of the records shows that respondents availed two loans from the appellant. We are concerned about the loan of Rs.40 lakhs on the security of Plot No.126, A-block, 80 feet road Thanikachallam Nagar, Ponniammanmedu, Chennai 600 110. The memorandum of agreement in respect of this loan executed by the respondents 2 & 3 in favour of the Bank shows that for the loan of Rs.40,00,000/-, the aforesaid plot was mortgaged. There is also a reference about the building construction made at Rs.64,81,500/- in a corpet area of 34.56 , build up area of 4321 sq.ft. in the land area of 3200 sq.ft. etc. The memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 06.07.2011 shows that the MODT was created for the land measuring to an extent of 3200 sq.ft. or 297.31 sq.m. as per patta S. Nos. 1159/15 and 1159/16 bearing plot No.126 Thanigachalam Nagar, Ponniammanmedu, Chennai 600 110, Madhavaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The notices issued under Section 13 (2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act referred about the land measuring 3200 sq.ft. together buildup area 4321 sq.ft. in the aforesaid survey number. In the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, specifically mentioned about the availing of loan facility against the security of the property measuring 3200 sq.ft. together buildup area of 4321 sq.ft. in the aforesaid survey numbers. Appellant has not produced a copy of the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, however, the order of the learned District Magistrate-cum-District Collector also refers about the same description of the property i.e. land with building. In the said circumstances, the issue arises in this appeal is as to whether the omission to mention the existence of the building in the MODT would affect the SARFAESI measures initiated with the issuance of demand notice under Section 13

(2) of the SARFAESI Act and possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

The issue therefore arises in this appeal is as to whether the omission to mention the existence of the building on the secured asset would adversely impact the measures taken under SARFAESI Act by the Bank. Learned counsel for the appellant/Bank is directed to produce the loan application and the other loan documents, if any, omitted to be produced already, along with the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to state as to whether any objection/representation was given raising the aforesaid grounds after receiving 13

(2) demand notice and whether these grounds had been raised or not in SA 58/2014 filed challenging the possession notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the respondents eeks time for making submissions. Post the matter on 19.11.2026.

Sd/-

Chairperson