IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 23^rd day of April, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON RA (SA) 44/2023 (arising out of SA 86/2020 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

Between

1. Mrs. S. Malathi, W/o Sourirajan, No.555/3, Methu Street, Kamarajar Nagar, Thellar 604 406.

Thiruvannamalai District.

2. Mr. T.S. Kamalesh, S/o Sourirajan, No.555/3, Methu Street, Kamarajar Nagar, Thellar 604 406.

Thiruvannamalai District.

…..Appellants And

1. The Authorised Officer, M/s Indian Overseas Bank, 2/278, Vandavasi Tindivanam Main Road, Thellar, Tamil Nadu 604 406.

2. Mr. N.K. Kalidas, S/o Kuttaya Gounder, 116, Ponnapillai Street, Nerkundram Village, Vayalamur Post, Thiruvannamalai District 604 400.

…..Respondents Counsel for Appellants : M/s R.K.M. Suresh & Adhitya D.

Counsel for 1^st Respondent Bank : Mr. P.H. Vinodh Pandian Counsel for 2^nd respondent : Mr. Arun Pradeesh K.

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai dated 30.3.2023 passed in SA No.86/2020.

2. Challenging the sale notice issued by the first respondent dated 28.2.2020, appellants filed SA 86/2020 under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. After contest, SA was dismissed. Therefore, this appeal is filed.

3. Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that grounds raised before the Tribunal were as follows:

a) Sale Notice dated 28.2.2020 fixing the sale on 19.3.2020 was served on the appellant only on 5.3.2020.

b) There was no clear 15 days notice prior to the date of sale, thus, there is violation of Rule 9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Act, 2002.

c) Sale Notice was published in Villupuram Edition on 5.3.2020.

d) The publication was not effected in the locality where the property is situated by giving publication of newspaper, which has wide publicity.

e) The property is situated in Vellore District but the sale notice was published in villupuram Edition, whereas publication of possession notice was effected in Vellore District. Thus, there is clear violation of compliance of Rule 8(2) & Rule 9(1) of SIE Rules.

f) Sale notice was not issued in terms of Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and first appellant was not served with the sale notice.

g) Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai granted an interim stay of E-

Auction Sale scheduled on 19.3.2020 on 18.3.2020 subject to condition to deposit 10% of the amount mentioned in the sale notice on or before 11.00 AM on 19.3.2020. Appellant complied with the condition and informed the bank about the order of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai and also the compliance of the conditional order.

Despite that, sale was proceeded with and the property was sold.

h) Sale consideration was not paid immediately and sale certificate was issued only on 18.9.2021.

i) Extent of the building was not mentioned in the sale notice.

4. Despite raising the above grounds, Learned Presiding Officer has not considered any of the grounds in the light of the evidence produced but gave a finding that measures had been properly taken, compliance of Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of SIE Rules was properly done and thus dismissed the SA No.86/2020. In such circumstances, Learned Counsel for appellants prayed to set aside the order of Learned Presiding Officer and allow this appeal.

5. In reply, Learned Counsel for first respondent bank submitted that first sale notice dated 23.8.2017 fixing the sale on 27.9.2017 was unsuccessful due to lack of bidders. Second sale notice dated 28.2.2020 was published in two newspapers namely Dinamani and New Indian Express in Villupram District which was widely circulated in Thellar, where the property is situated. Thellar is located within the Thiruvannamalai District and not in Vellore District. Sale Notice dated 28.2.2020 was sent to the appellant through speed post on 3.2.2020. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai passed an order in IA 338/2020 in SA 86/2020 granting stay