Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Nagavalli vs CANARA BANK on 3 November 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):36/2025
NAGAVALLI & ORS V/S CANARA BANK
03/11/2026
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
This appeal is filed against the order passed in NDN 2138/2024 in SA SR.No.12380/2022 (Old Dy.No.1331/2022) on 04.11.2024 by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai and to condone the delay of 510 days in re-presenting the SA SR.No.12380/2022 before the Tribunal.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent-Bank issued sale notice dated 04.05.2022 for the sale of the secured asset on 06.06.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,36,716/-. During the course of hearing, the respondent-Bank filed a memo stating that the sale notice was issued without following the procedures warranted under the SARFAESI Act and admitted the infirmities in issuing the sale notice. It was prayed for permission to withdraw the sale notice by retaining the right to initiate fresh SARFAESI measures, if the default of the appellants continues. Accordingly, SA 268/2022 was allowed.
Thereafter, the respondent-Bank issued fresh sale notice dated 20.09.2022 fixing the sale on 31.10.2022 without following the proper measures required under the SARFAESI Act. As against the fresh sale notice, appellants filed SA Dy.No.1331/2022. The fresh sale notice dated 20.09.2022 was not served on the appellants and therefore, copy of the sale notice could not be filed along with the securitization application. Appellants were taking steps for getting a copy of the sale notice and for want of sale notice, securitization application was kept un-numbered. Meanwhile, vacancy occurred in the post of Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai. Thereafter, Registry of the DRT directed the appellants to take the securitization application papers and file afresh along with an application for condoning the delay in re-presentation. When such an application was filed, the learned Presiding Officer, without going into the reasons behind the delay in re-presentation of the securitization application, dismissed the application filed for re-presentation and thereafter appellants filed NDN/2138/2024 for re-calling the order passed on 16.07.2024. That was also dismissed and therefore, the present appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank strongly opposes this appeal on the ground that Appellant filed Securitization Application in Dy No. 1203 of 2022 on 31.10.2022 challenging the sale held on 31.10.2022 on the basis of the sale notice dated 20.9.2022. This Securitization Application had been dismissed on 2.6.2023. Thereafter, the fresh Securitization Application was filed in Dy. No. 1331 of 2022 for the same relief, to set aside the sale dated 31.10.2022 in pursuance of the sale notice dated 20.9.2022.
Though both the Securitization Applications had been filed in time, there was a delay of 510 days in representation of SA in Dy No.1331 of 2022. Therefore, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai rightly dismissed the application filed for recalling the order of dismissal passed in Dy No.1331 of 2022 on 16.7.2024 with the dismissal of MA NDN 2138 of 2024 filed for recalling the order dated 16.7.2024.
In response to this submission, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for Appellant that admittedly that two Securitization Applications have been filed. The first Securitization Application was filed to challenge the sale held in respect of the property in Survey 45/7, situated at Thurapallam Village, Gummudipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Pin – 601 201. In view of non-service of sale notice and information with regard to the outcome of the sale, Appellant did not know that this property was not sold. On getting the copy of the sale notice from the Respondent Bank, and finding that the property in Survey Nos.41/22 and 41/23 in Thurapallam Village, Gummudipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Pin – 601 201 had been sold, SA in Dy No. 1331 of 2022 has been filed. The delay in representation had happened because of non-service of sale notice and that there was no Presiding Officer, and these factors contributed to the delay of 510 days.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
It is seen from the submissions and the records produced in this case that though the sale held on 31.10.2022 in pursuance of the sale notice dated 20.9.2022 had been challenged, the property concerned in both the Securitization Applications are totally different. Admittedly, the Securitization Applications were filed in time. Whether the sale notice was served and sale measures had been properly taken by the Respondent Bank for the sale of the property, is a subject matter to be decided in the main Securitization Application.
Since there is a delay in representation of the Securitization Application for the reasons aforesaid, this Tribunal is of the view that the delay in representation of the Securitization Application SA SR No.12380 of 2022 can be condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Library of DRT/DRAT Bar Association, Chennai, on or before 18.11.2026.
List the appeal for reporting compliance on 20.11.2026.
Sd/-
Chairperson