ANITHA vs M S REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD on 10 November 2026

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

R.A(S.A):52/2026

Mrs R. Anitha V/S M/S Repco Home Finance Ltd 10/11/2026

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT- II, Chennai in TSA 93/2023 on 13.02.2023. TSA 93/2023 was originally filed before the DRT-I, Chennai as SA 420/2022 and later transferred to DRT-II, Chennai, re-numbered as TSA 93/2023. This securitization application has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.9422/2022 on 23.06.2022 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. On dismissal of the said securitization application, this appeal is filed. The order of the learned Presiding Officer shows that originally, the question that arose for consideration of the DRT was legality of measures initiated by declaring the account as NPA. It was observed and held by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai that the dispute raised with regard to classification of account as NPA was done without producing any document. On the other hand, the Bank has produced statement of accounts to establish the default and classification of account as NPA It was also observed that the demand notice has been properly served. The Bank also produced proof of service and publication of possession notice and sale notice. The Tribunal did not find any defect in the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and thus dismissed the securitization application. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the loan was sanctioned for Rs.65,00,000/-, but, the Bank has disbursed only Rs.60,00,000/-. However, the Bank calculated the interest for the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- and fixed the EMI. If the EMI is fixed on the basis of the loan disbursed i.e. for Rs.60,00,000/-, certainly, the due amount would be reduced. Therefore, the very due amount claimed in the demand notice and the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are wrong. She wants adjournment as a last opportunity for taking steps to settle the loan amount. It is informed that the property is not sold and physical possession of the property is also not taken. Therefore, with a view to give an opportunity to the appellant to pay the loan amount and save the property from being taken physical possession and sold, this Tribunal granted time till 18.11.2026 for the learned counsel for the appellant either to settle the loan amount or to argue the matter in full on the merits of the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant is also required to clarify as to whether the disbursal of the loan amount is Rs.60,00,000/- or Rs.65,00,000/-. Post the matter on 18.11.2026.

Sd/-

Chairperson