IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.10.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN C.R.P.No.2434 of 2021 Axis Bank Limited, Represented by its Senior Manager and Authorized Representative, J.S.Dileep Kumar, No.82, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. .. Petitioners Vs.

1.M/s.Kausan, Partnership Firm Represented by one of its Partner, S.Sumathi, Prince Towers, 94/113, Purasavakkam High Road, Chennai -600 010.

And at: O'Lander, No.99, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai -600 018.

2.S.Sumathi 3.S.Gayathri

4.Parimala Raghavachari

5.R.Sriram

6.R.Srikanth

7.T.A.Bhashyam .. Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2021 passed in R.A.No.63 of 2018 on the file the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.Chethan Sagar For Mr.V.V. Sivakumar For M/s.Dua Associates For Respondents : M/s.Geetha Rajasekar (through Video Conferencing)

and Mr.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan For respondent No.7 R1 to R6 – Given Up ORDER (Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan, J.)

Heard Mr.Chethan Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Geetha Rajasekar learned counsel for the seventh respondent.

2. The secured creditor bank has filed the civil revision petition assailing the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT], Chennai, dated 13.08.2021 in R.A.No.63 of 2018.

3. The relevant facts to be noted are that the petitioner bank had sanctioned financial assistance to the borrowers / respondents 1 to 6 in the form of cash credit facility and letter of credit to the tune of Rs.1.25 Crores. The seventh respondent had executed a general power of attorney on 14.03.2021 in favour of his wife in respect of two of his properties.

4. The seventh respondent, represented by his wife as power agent, stood as guarantor for the loan availed by the respondents 1 to 6 and had mortgaged his property. Since the borrowers defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner bank filed O.A.No.136 of 2004 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal [DRT-I], transferred and numbered as O.A.No.240 of 2015 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal [DRT-II], Chennai, seeking to jointly and severally recover the sum of Rs.1,27,88,351.57 [Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty One and Fifty Seven Paise only] along with interest from the respondents.

5. The respondents 1 to 6 were set ex parte and the seventh respondent filed the written statement. The seventh respondent took a stand that the power of attorney, though allows for a mortgage, it could be made only for the benefit of the principal and not for any third party. The mortgage executed by his wife / power agent is void ab initio. The mortgage and guarantee executed on his behalf are ultra vires the power and authority vested with the agent.

6. The DRT, by order dated 07.08.2017, allowed the application decreeing the claim of the bank against the respondents 1 to 6/ borrowers, but however, holding that the mortgage executed by seventh respondent/ guarantor is not valid, had dismissed the claim against him. Aggrieved, the petitioner bank filed an appeal before the DRAT, Chennai, in R.A.No.63 of 2018 and the appeal also came to be dismissed on 13.08.2021. The DRAT, though observed that there has been lapse on the part of the seventh respondent, however held that when compared to bank, it is lesser and had confirmed the order of the DRT. Assailing the order of the DRAT, the petitioner bank is before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the seventh respondent has stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by the borrowers through his wife / power agent, he is bound to settle the dues of the borrowers and cannot wriggle out of his liability. When the seventh respondent has not disputed the power of attorney executed in favour of his wife,