IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 13^th Day of February, 2026 PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON (Arising out of SA No.539/2013 on the file of DRT, Ernakulam)

Between

1. Punjab National Bank Rep. by its Manager, Meenchantha Branch, Meenchantha P.O., Kozhikode, Kerala 673 015. 2. The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Meenchantha Branch, Meenchantha P.O., Kozhikode, Kerala 673 015.

3. Asset Recovery Management Branch, Punjab National Bank, Represented by Senior Manager, First Floor, 40/1461, Market Road, Ernakulam, Kerala 682 011.

……..Appellant And

1. Mrs. K. Pushpa, W/o Mr. Madhavadas, Jayalaxmi Nivas, Beypore Amsom, North Beypore, P.O. Kozhikode, Kerala.

2. M/s K. Leela, W/o Late Krishnankutty Nair, Proprietor, M/s Plathhottathil Ayurvedies, Krishna Leela, North Beypore, P.O., Kozhikode, Kerala 673 015.

3. Mrs. G Jyothirmayi, Aranattu Elakkattu House, Kangazha P.O., Kottayam, Kerala 686 541.

…Respondents Counsel for Appellant Bank : M/s M.L. Ganesh and Co.

Counsel for R1 and R2 : M/s Mohammad Salahudhin & Co.

Counsel for R3 : M/s P. J. Rishikesh & Co.

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, against the order of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam dated 31.7.2015 passed in SA No.539/2013 by the appellant bank.

2. This is second round of litigation before this Tribunal. Respondent in this Appeal viz. Mrs. K. Pushpa filed SA No.539/2013 seeking the following reliefs;

a) To declare the sale of the property, as intimated in Annexure-8 communication, i.e., the secured asset is vitiated by fraud and material irregularity and is liable to be set aside.

b) To declare the alleged sale held on 9.5.2013 reflected through Annexure-8 as illegal, invalid, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.

c) To pass an order for compensation, costs, etc.

3. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam by his order dated 31.7.2015 allowed the Securitization Application. Aggrieved against the said order, appellant bank filed an appeal before this Tribunal in RA (SA) 63/2015. Former Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai by order dated 9.5.2019 allowed the Appeal. Against the order allowing the appeal, first respondent filed OP(DRT) 151/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Hon’ble High Court of Kerala passed an order in the petition on 24.9.2025, setting aside the order passed by this Tribunal passed in RA(SA) 63/2015 on 9.5.2019, with a direction to re-hear the Appeal, i.e., RA(SA) 63/2015 in accordance with law, after referring to the question stated in the order. In this background, this appeal was re-heard.

4. The question raised in the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in paragraph 5 of the order is that, “Whether the petitioner should have been served with a fresh notice, when sale fixed on 21.3.2013 did not fructify in view of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WPC No.7446/2013 on 20.3.2013, directing the postponement of sale on the condition of the first respondent remitting one-third of the amounts due on or before 11.00 AM on 21.3.2013 and the balance amount in five equal instalments.” Challenging the publication of Sale Notice dated 15.2.2013 by calling for tenders from general public to be opened on 21.3.2013. It is an admitted case of the parties that as per the conditional order passed WP No.7446/2013 on 20.3.2013, first respondent had only paid one-third of the amount due on 21.3.2013 but failed to pay the balance amount in five equal instalments, starting from the first instalment to be paid on or before 21.4.2013 and the remaining insalments on or before 21^st of every succeeding months.

5. It is the case of learned counsel for the appellant bank that the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala passed in WP(C)No.7446/2013 was a self-operating order. If the first respondent had not complied with the terms of the order, bank was empowered to proceed with coercive action already initiated. Therefore, there is no requirement for giving a fresh not