IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 6^th day of March, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON RA (SA) 24/2024 (Arising out of SA 110/2019 on the file of DRT - III, Chennai)

Between

1. M.Raghu S/o. Mani, No.20, 16^th Street, 5^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.

2. R.Dinesh, S/o. M.Raghu, No.20, 16^th Street, 5^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. …..Appellants And

1. Mr.N.Umapathy, S/o. Late Nagalingam, No.66, Road Street, Kundrathur Main Road, Moonramkattalai, Chennai – 600 069.

2. Mr. N.Munusamy, S/o. Late Nagalingam, No.66, Road Street, Kundrathur Main Road, Moonramkattalai, Chennai – 600 069.

3. Mr.N.Harikrishnan (Deceased)

S/o. Late Nagalingam, No.66, Road Street, Kundrathur Main Road, Moonramkattalai, Chennai – 600 069.

4. Mrs. N.Anjala Devi, W/o. Late Nagalingam, No.66, Road Street, Kundrathur Main Road, Moonramkattalai, Chennai – 600 069.

5. The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India*

No.38 & 39, Whites Road, P.B.No.2227 Chennai - 600 014 …..Respondents * Amended as per order dated 27.09.2023 in IA 87/2022 Counsel for Appellant : Smt.Rohini Ravikumar Counsel for R1, R2 & R4 : Mr. Devaraj Counsel for R5 : Mr. Sivabalan

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Sec.18 of the SARFAESI Act, to set aside the order passed in SA 110/2019 on 09.12.2019 by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – 3, Chennai.

2. Ld. Counsel for appellants submitted that the respondents 1 to 4 filed SA

110/2019 challenging the order passed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Kancheepuram in Rc.M3/17188/2018 dated 06.05.2019. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – 3, Chennai, without actually considering the challenge made to the order impugned above, proceeded to dispose the SA directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remit an amount of Rs.10,86,000/- due and demanded by the respondent bank as on 19.11.2019 and further interest, on or before 10.12.2019. The respondents 1 to 4 was also directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% p.a to the auction purchaser from the respective dates of deposit of amount less the rate of interest payable by respondent bank for keeping the said amount in deposit with it. There was also a direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of legal expenses directly to the auction purchaser. The respondent bank was permitted to levy possession notice, sale notice paper publication expenses, valuation charges and Advocate fee from the borrowers. This exercise was directed to be completed within a week from the date of the order. On compliance, the bank was directed to discharge the mortgage and deliver original Title Deeds to the applicants/respondents 1 to 4.

3. This order, according to the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, is beyond the scope of the prayer sought in the SA. It is his further submission that the right of redemption available to the borrower is lost once the publication of sale is effected, in view of the mandate Sec.13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act. The date of publication of sale was 08.07.2018, the date of sale was on 27.05.2018 and the sale was confirmed on 12.11.2018. In the said circumstances, the directions issued by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – III, Chennai, cannot be enforced. In support of his submission, Ld. Counsel produced a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542 – 5543 of 2023 reported in Celir LLP Vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. & Others.

4. Ld. Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the entire facts i.e., the events that had taken place prior to filing of the petition before the Ld. District Collector cum District Magistrate, under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, had not been stated in the petition. Issuance of 1^st sale notice, 2^nd sale notice and sale of the property and issuance of sale certificate to the Auction Purchaser had not been disclosed in the affidavit and the petition filed. In view of omission of this material facts, the petition filed under Sec. 14 of the SARFAES