RA (SA) 95/2018

1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

Dated the 18^th of May, 2022

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

CHAIRPERSON

RA (SA) 95/2018

Between

V. Vijay Anand,

S/o R. Vinayagamoorthy,

No.216-A, Kantharam Avenue,

Sankarankoil,

Rajapalayam- 626 117.

……Appellant

And

The Authorised Officer,

Central Bank of India,

Raja Muthaiah Mandram,

First Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road,

Madurai – 625 020.

…..Respondents

RA (SA) 95/2018

2

ORDER

1. This Appeal is preferred against the Order of DRT, Madurai

dated 16.11.2017 in SA 408/2016 wherein Tribunal below

dismissed the Application of Appellant filed under Section 17 of the

SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are that Appellant herein

availed Overdraft facility from Respondent Bank for which he

offered his lands as security. As the Appellant failed to clear the

outstanding due, Respondent Bank invoked the provisions of

SARFAESI Act and issued the Demand Notice under Section 13(2)

of the Act on 28.04.2015 and thereafter issued Possession Notice

under Section 13(4) of the Act on 07.06.2016 and took symbolic

possession of secured property.

3. Appellant challenged the action of the Respondent Bank on

the ground that the lands given as security are agricultural lands

and Bank failed to serve the Possession Notice on the Appellant.

RA (SA) 95/2018

3

Appellant contended that he received only the E-auction Sale Notice

and not the Possession Notice, therefore, action of Bank has to be

set aside.

4. Respondent Bank resisted the contentions of the Appellant on

the ground that the lands given as security are not agricultural

lands and they are earmarked for industries and houses, and that

Bank strictly followed the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and

Rules made thereunder, and Possession Notice was served on

Appellant on 15.06.2016. Bank also contended that Possession

Notice was also published in two leading newspapers “the New

Indian Express” and another in Tamil newspaper “Dinamani” which

are having sufficient circulation in that locality.

5. Respondent

Bank

contended

that

after

following

the

mandatory provisions, E-auction Notice was issued fixing sale on

26.10.2016 and the grounds urged in the Application are not

tenable.

RA (SA) 95/2018

4

6. Tribunal below, on a consideration of contentions and rival

contentions

of

both

parties,

dismissed

the

Securitisation

Application, aggrieved by which present Appeal is preferred.

7. Both sides filed Written Arguments and the same are

reiterated at the time of oral submissions.

8. Learned Counsel for Appellant mainly focused on two aspects

in support of Appellant’s case. The first aspect is that the lands

given as security are agricultural lands against which Bank is not

entitled to proceed under SARFAESI Act. Second aspect contended

by Learned Counsel for Appellant is that valuation of the property is

shown wrongly and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act while taking

valuation are not followed. It is submitted that Tribunal below

grossly erred in rejecting the plea of Appellant that the lands are

agricultural lands.

9. It is submitted that though documentary evidence is produced

to show that crops are raised in the secured assets, Tribunal below

discarded the same accepting the objection of Bank that Village

RA (SA) 95/2018

5

Administrative Officer (VAO) is not the competent authority. He

further submitted that valuation of property is not properly taken

and the Bank advanced Rs.2 Crores on the security of this property,

but its value was fixed at Rs.24.35 Lakhs, which is without any

basis, therefore Order of Tribunal below is liable to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank

submitted that Tribunal below has rightly dismissed the Application

after considering documents produced on behalf of both par