IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 4^th day of February, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON RA (SA) 74/2018 (arising out of SA 214/2013 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

Between Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited Rep. by its Authorised Officer, No.52, ABC Vallal Pachaiappan Street, Kancheepuram.

Now the account is transferred to Asset Recovery Management Cell, No.4, T.T.K. Road, 1^st Floor, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.

…..Appellant Bank And

1. Mr. G. Kumar, 961, School Street, Manampathy Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram 631 501.

2. Mr. R. Madan, No.26/3, Tambaiah Road, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033 …..Respondents Counsel for Appellant Bank : M/s V. Chandrasekaran & Co.

Respondents remained ex parte.

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, challenging the order passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in SA 214/2023 on

30.6.2016.

2. Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank submitted that the Demand Notice to

1^st Respondent had been sent and the same was refused by him. Affixture, publication of Demand Notice and Sale Notice had been done as per the procedure. While Demand Notice was refused by 1^st Respondent, Sale Notice sent has been returned with an endorsement “left without instructions”. However, Learned Presiding Officer wrongly gave a finding that the Respondent Bank has not produced the documents evidencing the affixture of Demand Notice and the Sale Notice.

3. On the other hand, the Appellant Bank has produced all these documents.

Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank further brought to my notice that the xerox copy of the returned cover containing Demand Notice with an endorsement “refused”, at pages 16 and 17; photo affixing the Demand Notice at pages 18 to 20; publication of Demand Notice at pages 21 and 22; xerox copy of returned cover containing Sale Notice at pages 42 to 47; publication of Sale Notice at pages 48 and 49 and photo affixing Sale Notice at pages 50 and 51 in the typed set of papers.

4. It appears that these documents have not been produced before the Tribunal below. Therefore, Tribunal reached that finding.

5. Now, from the additional documents produced, it is seen that demand notice sent to R1 was returned as refused. Photo affixing demand notice in the disputed property, publication of demand notice, Xerox copy of returned cover containing Sale Notice, publication of Sale Notice and photo of affixture of sale notice are produced.

6. In view of production of these documents before this Appellate Tribunal, this Tribunal finds that the measures have been taken after following necessary procedure contemplated under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

7. It is seen that some of these documents are not produced before Tribunal below. Therefore, with a view to facilitate production of these documents before Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai and to give an opportunity to both parties to contest the matter afresh in the light of the additional documents produced, Order of Ld. Presiding Officer dated 30.6.2016 passed in SA 214/2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded to DRT-III, Chennai for a fresh disposal, after taking into consideration the documents already produced and produced before this Tribunal as additional documents on merits as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

8. It is seen that respondents have not appeared before this Tribunal despite sufficient opportunity and were set ex parte. Therefore, Ld. Presiding officer is directed to issue notice to respondents before deciding the matter on merits.

9. With the above direction, Appeal RA(SA) 74/2018 is disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 4th h February, 2025)

Sd/-

(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN)

CHAIRPERSON