Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha vs The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank – ARM Branch & Ors.

These three appeals are filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, as follows:

SA No.348/2008 was filed by Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha, the appellant in RA(SA) 12/2018 against the Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, N. Sivaji, T.R. Gopi and R. Akbar Ali to call for the records from the Indian Bank, enquire the same and to declare the measures taken in respect of the schedule mentioned property including sale certificate issued by the respondent bank in favour of respondents 2 to 4 in the SARFAESI application, as invalid.

The case of the appellant in RA(SA) 12/2018 viz., the applicant in SANo.348/2018 is that she is the owner of the four plots bearing Plot Nos.122, 123, 125 and 126 of Haritha Enclave, West Tambaram, Chennai 600 005, by virtue of purchase dated 14.3.2007 and a building measuring 3743 sq.ft. has been constructed in these plots. Originally, a part of the schedule mentioned property was purchased by one Mr. Arasu Rajarathnam from Mr.A.S. Ramanujam and Blue Jaggers Estates Limited on 7.2.1996. Another part of the schedule property was purchased by Emma Rajarathnam from A.S. Ramanujam and Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd. by virtue of two sale deeds dated 7.2.1996. Appellant, Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha took loan from Centurion Bank for buying the property and sale consideration was paid through A/c Payee Cheque. When she purchased the property, she verified the encumbrance from 1.1.1987 to 15.3.2006 and found there was no encumbrance. Original documents were deposited with Centurion Bank with an intention to create mortgage. She was paying the monthly instalments regularly. There was superstructure at the time of her purchase on 14.3.2007. There was an attempt to trespass into the property on 17.12.2008 and she gave a compliant in S-11 Police Station, Tambaram. Later she came to know that respondent bank sold the property under the SARFAESI Act and that large extent of land was mortgaged with Indian Bank and similarly placed plot owners approached the bank and on their request, there plots were not auctioned. She came to know that Plot Nos.122 and 123 had been sold to second respondent and Plot No.125 to the third respondent and Plot No.126 to the 4^th respondent. All the plots are within the same compound wall with a single house constructed in these plots. They cannot be split up and sold. Sale was held without following the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, SA No.348/2008 was filed. After contest, this SA was dismissed. Therefore, the appeal viz., RA(SA) 12/2018 is filed.

First respondent in RA (SA) 163/2018, Shri Satyanarayanan filed SA No.409/2014 against the Authorised Officer, Indian Bank to declare that respondent bank did not follow the procedure in accordance with law. He is entitled to notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAES Act. Sale, if any, held on 5.11.2008 is not valid and binding on him and to forbid the respondent from taking any steps against the SA schedule property and for other reliefs.

The case of the first respondent in RA(SA) 163/2018, in brief, is that applicant Shri V. Sathyanarayanan in SANo.409/2014 is a third party and he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He is the owner of Plot No.64 of Haritha Enclave, Tambaram. He purchased the said plot No.64 by a sale deed dated 17.3.1999 from E. Amalajothi, S. David and M/s Blue Jaggers Ltd. He took possession of the property. There was no information that this plot was mortgaged with Indian Bank. When he went to his plot on 11.2.2009, he was informed by the adjacent plot owner that bank had taken steps to sell his plot and handed over the hand bill regarding sale under the SARFAESI Act. He applied for encumbrance and did not find any sale. Even if the mortgage claimed by the bank is valid, he has the right of redemption before taking steps for sale under SARFAESI Act. Bank should have obtained encumbrance to know about the encumbrance in the property. He came to know that some other plot owners like him approached the respondent bank and bank obliged them by permitting them to make some payments and not proceeded with sale on those plots. Thus, claiming that the SARFAESI action taken is invalid, he filed SA No.409/2014. After contest, this SA was allowed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai. Against the said order, bank filed Appeal No.163/2018. Auction Purchaser Shri S.R. Raja, who was the 3^rd respondent in SA No.409/2014 filed RA(SA) 41/2019, challenging the same order.

Learned Counsel for V. Satyanarayanan further submitted that at the time of his purchase, he verified the encumbrance and found that there is no mortgage or encumbrance in respect of Plot No.64, measuring 3618 sq.ft. He purchased on 17.3.1999. Land measuring 9.86 acres in Survey No.384/1A4 and 384/1A5 belong to the vendors Amalajothi and S. David. Encumbrance Certificate from 1.1.1987 to 30.3.2016 did not reflect any encumbrance. In the sale notice dated 30.9.2008, Survey Number was shown as 384 whereas even in the year 1998 this survey number was sub-divided as 384/1A4 and 384/1A5. Out of 142 plots, sale notice was given only for 25 plots. SARFAESI application filed in respect of one of the plot owners in SA No.98/2008 was allowed. First respondent is also similarly placed like the applicant in SA No.98/2008. Interim order was granted on 16.2.2009 and it was extended till 24.2.2009. The sale was held on 5.11.2008. Despite the interim order was in force and protest petition was given to the Sub-Registrar, sale certificate was presented on 13.3.2009 and registered on 27.2.2009. He further submitted that fraud has been committed by bank officials. Seven bank officials filed anticipatory bail applications in the criminal proceedings initiated against them was dismissed. There was a memorandum of understanding between the bank and Blue Jaggers Estates Limited represented by Sampath. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed an order on the basis of compromise. His vendor had not mortgaged the property.

Ld. Counsel for the bank submitted that property was mortgaged by Amalajothi and S. David. Property was mortgaged with the bank prior to the purchase made by the first respondent. Property was sold under the SARFAESI Act by following necessary procedure by issuing demand notice and possession notice. These measures were not challenged. Bank has first charge over the property.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha, that agricultural lands were purchased for developing them as plots for sale. Out of the sale proceeds, borrowers had to pay the dues to the bank. Plot Nos.122, 123, 124, 125 and 126 have been purchased by the appellant Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha from Mr. Arasu Rajarathnam, who in turn purchased from Mr.A.S. Ramanujam. M/s N.S. Investments availed loan and it was taken over by Blue Jaggers Estate Limited. Liability claimed at Rs.189.79 crores is not correct. Loan documents are dated 15.7.1996 but the date of NPA was on 30.6.1995. No mortgage was created subsequent to 15.7.1996. Order passed in Writ Petition No.1755/2024 applies to this case also. When the plots were sold with the consent of the bank, plot purchasers cannot be held liable for the loan recoverable, when borrower committed default.

Appellant is a bona fide purchaser. The date of sale of appellant’s vendor is 7.2.1996. Appellant purchased it on 14.3.2007. Date of 13(2) demand notice was 30.12.2006 and 13(4) sale notice was 30.9.2008. Sale in favor of appellant’s vendor and the appellant is not reflected in the sale notice as required under SIE Rule 8(7)(a). There is house constructed and that house is also not mentioned in the sale notice.

Two SAs were filed in respect of S.No.23 and 24 were allowed. SA filed by one Lalitha in SA 122/2008 was allowed and Appeal RA(SA) 93/2008 was dismissed confirming the order of DRT and that order has become final. Bank has to proceed only against the borrower and not against bona fide plot purchaser. Bank is estopped from exercising its charge, when it permitted the borrowers to develop the lands into plots and sell them to prospective buyers.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Indian bank that M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited filed SA No.221/2007 challenging the SARFAESI action and that was dismissed by the DRT. In the appeal filed, there was a condition to make a pre-deposit of Rs.3.00 crores, against which, Writ Petition No.20772/2008 was filed and that was dismissed on 26.8.2008. SLP (C) No.24286/2008 was also dismissed on 17.10.2008.

Thereafter, M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited filed Writ Petition No.19346/2009 for quashing the order of DRAT dated 15.5.2009 and another Writ petition in WP 19746/2009 for a Mandamus to direct the DRT to hear OA No.1098/1998 along with IA 237/2008 within a fixed time. Hon’ble Division Bench directed the Tribunal to dispose of OA 1098/1998 and IA 237/2008 within two months. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while deciding Civil Appeal Nos.6395 & 6396/2010 ordered that ,”M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited to pay Rs.3.00 crores in terms of the conditional order dated 21.7.2008, within four weeks, failing which, appeal filed against the order passed in SA 221/2007 shall stand dismissed.” It is submitted that as per this order, M/s Blue Jaggers had not paid Rs.3.00 crores, therefore, the appeal was also dismissed. When SA filed by the borrower viz. M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited itself was dismissed, SARFAESI applications filed by Carolin Prabha and Satyanarayanan cannot be entertained at all for the reason that they only purchasers from the borrowers.

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT had not considered any of the grounds raised in the counter filed in the SA. Purchasers of the plots purchased them, knowing well that there is an existing mortgage over the same. Bank had already issued notice to the borrowers about the SARFAESI actions. There is no requirement for the bank to issue notice to third parties. Public was also cautioned by giving public notice warning them not to deal with the property.

Learned Counsel for the auction purchaser adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent bank. In addition to that, he submitted that DRT has powers only to consider whether the procedures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have been followed or not in the SARFAESI auction and it cannot declare the title. Learned Presiding Officer had not considered the grounds raised by the auction purchasers before the Tribunal. Auction purchasers are bona fide purchasers and their rights have to be protected.

Before proceeding to discuss the merits of the orders passed by the Tribunals below, it is necessary to know the background in which the SAs concerned in these appeals came to be filed.

M/s N.S. Investments, a partnership firm consisting of Mrs. P. Nalini, Mr. Sudhir K. Patil as its partners engaged in Real Estate Development of properties, investment and allied activities and in farming, poultry farming and agricultural and other activities. The said firm approached the Indian bank on 4.11.1989 seeking various credit facilities and bank considered the request and sanctioned various credit facilities. One Mr. K.M.Kochukumar stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by M/s N.S. Investments and executed agreement of guarantee on 24.1.1992. Blue Jaggers Estate Limited in its Board of Directors meeting held on 20.4.1992 resolved to extend Company’s Corporate guarantee to the bank for all the credit facilities availed by M/s N.S. Investments. In another meeting dated 27.5.1995, Board of Directors of Blue Jaggers Limited, resolved to take over the liabilities of M/s N.S. Investments amounting to Rs.169.49 lakhs. As per the request of Blue Jaggers Estate Limited, loan of M/s N.S. Investment was converted into Blocked Loan Facility (takeover of liability of M/s N.S. Investments) and one Mr.R. Thangapandian was authorized to execute necessary documents on behalf of Blue Jaggers Estate Limited. In the course of business, Blue Jaggers Estate Limited availed the following facility to take over the liability of N.s. Investments.

It is gathered from various records produced and from the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for parties, Blue Jaggers Estate Limited sourced lands from various persons for development of lands into plots and selling them to prospective buyers. First Respondent in RA(SA) 163/2018, viz. Mr V. Satyanarayanan is one such buyer from the land owners and power agent of Blue Jaggers Estate Limited. Similarly, Mrs. E.Carolin Prabha is the purchaser of four plots from the buyers of land owners and power agent of Blue Jaggers Estate Limited. On the Blue Jaggers Estate Limited failing to pay loan amount due to Indian Bank, Indian Bank filed OA No.1098/1998 before DRT-I, Chennai for recovery of money along with interest. Similarly, Indian Bank initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act against the borrowers/guarantors. Demand Notice dated 30.12.2006 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act shows that addressees 2 to 4 are the directors of Blue Jaggers Estate Pvt Ltd. and guarantors for the loan availed by Blue Jaggers Estate Limited and addressees 5 to 37 are the mortgagors who offered their assets as securities by way of mortgage created to the loan availed by M/s N.S. Investments and taken over by Blue Jaggers Estate Investment Limited.

V. Satyanarayanan and Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha filed applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging the measures taken against their plots. SARFAESI application filed Mr. V. Satyanarayanan in SA No.409/2014 was allowed. SARFAESI application filed by Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha in SA No.348/2018 was dismissed. Therefore, these appeals are filed by aggrieved parties in both SAs. The fact that remains common is that plots concerned in both SAs are situated in Haritha Enclave and the applicants before the Tribunal are either direct purchaser of the plot from the owners and power agent of Blue Jaggers Estate Limited or from the purchasers, from the owners of the plots and power agent of Blue Jaggers Estate Limited.

The main ground of challenge in these SAs before Tribunal is that applicants are bona fide purchasers for value, without notice or knowledge about the mortgage, if any, created in respect of larger extent of land, which was plotted out and sold to them and to so many others. Indian Bank did not reveal the mortgage to the prospective buyers. Prior to purchase of plots, they verified the encumbrance and the encumbrance certificate showed that there is no encumbrance, especially, the encumbrance of mortgage in favour of the Indian Bank. On the fond hope of purchasing unencumbered property, they invested money in purchase of plot(s) by investing their life’s savings and developments have been made. The vendors of Mrs. E.Carolin Prabha had constructed a building in the four plots purchased by her and without indicating the existence of the building and subsequent sale in favour of Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha bank proceeded to issue possession notice and sale notice and sold the property. Survey No.384 was sub-divided long back. But in the notices issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, sub division number of survey no.384 was not given.

It is their further case that bank officials have colluded with borrowers and indulged in fabrication of mortgage documents and other loan documents that led to filing of criminal case against some bank officials. Bank officials in turn lodged Criminal OP for quashing the criminal case but that was dismissed. When the matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, there was a compromise reached and a Memorandum of Understanding was recorded. As per the MoU, Indian Bank stated that it recovered its dues towards the final settlement and undertook to withdraw all the pending cases.

Yet another ground taken is that there is no material produced to show when the original mortgage was created in favour of M/s N.S Investments by the mortgagors. SARFAESI action is barred by limitation for the reason that mortgage was prior to 12 years of issuance of demand notice.

As already stated, bank’s case is that the applicants in the SAs are third parties to SARFAESI proceedings and they purchased the plots when there was a subsisting mortgage in favour of the bank and therefore they are not entitled for any relief.

It is relevant to consider and discuss the documents and additional documents filed by parties, who are prosecuting the appeals. Both parties have filed applications for receiving additional documents in IA Nos.1250/2025, 1253/2025 and 1230/2025 and they were allowed, as these documents are helpful in the adjudication of these appeals.

First respondent produced the following documents as additional documents to show that he purchased Plot No.64 in Haritha Enclave.

Indian Bank had also filed following additional documents in RA(SA) 163/2018 and RA(SA) 12/2018.

From these documents, it can be gathered that the documents acknowledging deposit of title deeds have been executed on 2.6.1995 and 17.7.1996. It is mentioned in these letters dated 2.6.1995 and 17.7.1996 that documents had already been deposited with the Indian bank. By these letters the power agent acknowledged and confirmed the deposit of title deeds for extension of equitable mortgage.

As already stated, M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited filed criminal complaint alleging that there was no mortgage created in the year 1990 or prior to 1995 and documents had been created resulting in lodging of criminal compliant. All these letters are written by power agent of the owners of Amalajyothi and S. David. When the original letter confirming execution of mortgage by deposit of title deeds was executed and by whom it was executed, whether by owners or by power agent, there is absolutely no evidence produced.

One of the grounds raised by Mrs. Carolin Prabha is that initiation of SARFAESI proceedings, if calculated from the original date of execution of mortgage, is barred by limitation. In the absence of letter confirming creation of mortgage by deposit of title deed prior to 1995, this Tribunal has to draw an inference that there is merit in the submission that SA proceedings initiated beyond the period of 12 years from the date of creation of mortgage is barred by limitation.

The appellant, Mrs. Carolin Prabha filed copies of sale deeds dated 7.2.1996 in favour of Arasu Rajarathnam (Doc.No.505/1996) Emma Rajarathnam (Doc. Nos.508/1996and 506/1996) and E Emilie Rajarathnam (Doc. No.507/1996). Copy of sale deed date 14.3.2007 in favour of the appellant is also produced. To support her case that there is building in the property, she produced planning permit along with plan given by Tambaram Municipality dated 14.3.1996. She produced a letter dated 23.3.1996 said to have been issued by the Indian bank to Arasu Rajarathinam for release of Plot Nos.122, 123, 125 and 126 on receiving Rs.1,59,468/- on the sale of these plots. However, this letter is disputed by the Learned Counsel for the respondent bank on the ground that this letter is forged and fabricated by M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited and a criminal compliant in this regard was given by the bank in reference No.ARMB/KK/BJ dated 26.3.2010 to the Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

A letter dated 17.12.1996 from the Chief Manger, Indian Bank Nungambakkam High Road Branch to the Asst. General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai South is produced to show that M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited has not paid the loan amount due, as required. It is recorded that M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited had been paying 50% of the costs of the plot and get the mortgaged released. Release letter format was duly approved by CO/legal department. There is also mention that the promoters have been asked to give additional properties valued at Rs.106.27 lakhs and the total value of securities held excluding the defective mortgage of property together with the value of EM released in Tambaram property comes to Rs.416.31 lakhs. This letter shows that certain securities were held as defective securities and M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited has to be requested for furnishing additional security. It is not known whether any additional security was received. It is evident from this letter that bank had been receiving 50% of the sale price of the plots from M/s Blue Jaggers Estates Limited.

Appellant, Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha’s vendors purchased only a vacant land. After purchase they got building plan approved and constructed one plus two floor building, as detailed in her sale deed. As stated earlier, notice issued under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) did not reflect the existence of building.

It is the case of the appellant Mrs. Carolin Prabha that she is not aware of any of the SARFAESI measures and only when some persons attempted to trespass on 17.2.2008 and on verification, she found about the SARFAESI action against her property. Criminal compliant was given by her on 17.12.2008 in Tambaram Police Station. Copy of the compliant and the receipt given are produced. Encumbrance certificate is produced to show that there is no entry reflecting mortgage in favour of the Indian Bank.

In the counter filed in the SA, it is claimed that mortgage in favour of Indian Bank was of the year 1992. As stated earlier, the only letter evidencing extension of mortgage executed by power agent of the owners had alone been produced but the letter evidencing execution of mortgage by deposit of title deeds at the time of creation of mortgage at the first instance is not produced.

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai dismissed SA No.348/2008 filed by the appellant, Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha on the ground that appellant is not entitled to challenge the compliance of mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and on the ground that when sale had happened, mortgage in favour of the Indian Bank was subsisting. No doubt, mortgage in favour of the Indian Bank was subsisting at the time of sale in favour of E. Carolin Prabha and V. Satyanarayanan. But they are not parties to the mortgage; nor they were informed about the subsistence of the mortgage. As already stated, they purchased plot (s) either directly from the owners of the land, power agent of M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited or from the purchasers of the land owners and power agent of M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited.

It is clear from the letter dated 17.12.1996 written by Indian Bank, Nungambakkam High Road Branch to the Regional Office, Chennai South that bank used 50% of the cost of the plot and gets the mortgage released. It makes it clear that only with the knowledge and consent of the bank, land owners and M/s Blue Jaggers Limited divided the land into plots and sold to the plot buyers. From the sale price of the plots, bank was repaid its loan amount.

Letter dated 7.10.1997 written by M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited is also produced to show that M/sBlue Jaggers paid a sum of Rs.92,85190/-. As directed by the bank it has to pay Rs.1,15,000/- for every ground sold. For the amounts paid, they should have got the EM released for 1,93,777.97 sq.ft, but the EM released was for 56,718 sq.ft. This letter shows that bank used to receive land amount on the sale of each plot and used to release EM in respect of the plot.

It is pertinent here to refer to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in re, Dara Siva Rao Vs. Kla Subba Rao reported in AIR 1934 Mad 302 relied on by the appellant Mrs. Carolin Prabha. In the said case, plaintiff was the assignee of the mortgage held by 4^th defendant. The first defendant was the mortgagor. Two items were comprised in the mortgage. 3^rd defendant is the subsequent purchaser of the 2^nd item. As per the findings of the first appellate court, the sale by the first defendant to the 3^rd defendant was brought about with the full knowledge and concurrence of the mortgagee, who was more or less instrumental in bringing about this purchase and who derived the benefit of this purchase, as he credited the purchase money of Rs.725/- towards the debt due from the 1^st defendant. 3^rd defendant was kept in complete ignorance of existing mortgage in favour of the 4^th defendant. 4^th defendant took active part in bringing about the sale. It was observed that by his silence or acquiescence, he led the 3^rd defendant to believe as if he is purchasing an unencumbered property. Therefore, it was held that 4^th defendant was estopped from setting up his mortgage on the second item, to the prejudice of the purchaser i.e., the third defendant. In the instant case, Indian Bank allowed M/s Blue Jaggers Estates Limited to sell the plots to many innocent buyers and received 50% of the sale price. Plot buyers were not informed by Indian Bank or M/s Blue Jaggers Estates Limited about the mortgage of land in favour of Indian Bank. Both suppressed this material aspect from the knowledge of the plot buyers and induced them to buy the plots.

The loan documents executed between M/s N.S. Investments Ltd and M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Limited with the Indian bank are not produced to find out what are the terms of repayment of the loan availed by them. But the aforementioned letters dated 17.12.1996 and 7.10.1997 shows that with the knowledge and consent of the Indian Bank, plots had been sold to several innocent plot buyers. The encumbrance certificate produced by the plot buyers shows that there is no reflection of mortgage created in favour of the Indian bank by the land owners either in the year 1992 or in the year 1995/1996. Therefore, individual plot buyers with their hard earned money or availing loan facility from banks/financial institutions bought plots to construct their dream houses. Had the plot buyers were aware of the mortgage in favour of the bank, they would not have purchased the plots at all. How can the bank proceed against individual plot buyers on the borrower/mortgagor failing to pay the loan availed for development of land for selling it as plots to the plot buyers? We have already seen that two SARFAESI applications viz., SA No.98/2008 and SA No.152/2008 were allowed by the Tribunal below.

Recently, on 29.1.2025, Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.1755/2024 filed against the order passed by DRAT in RA(SA) 49/2013 arose out of SA No.95/2009 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai, taking note of the fact that SA No.152/2008 filed by Vasantha Srinivasan, who was similarly placed like the writ petitioner was allowed and appeal in RA(SA) 93/2018 was dismissed, and joint memo of compromise was arrived, directed the Indian Bank to hand over the documents relating to the plot of the writ petitioner through Haritha Enclave Association.

Plots in these appeals are also situated in Haritha Enclave. Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha and V. Satyanarayanan are similarly placed like Vasantha Srinivasan in SA No.152/2008 and the writ petitioner in WP No.1755/2024 and are entitled for the same relief.

In view of the discussion held above, this Tribunal finds that when the plots had been sold to the independent plot buyers with the knowledge and consent of the Indian bank and when in fact bank had been paid part payments from the sale consideration received by M/s Blue Jaggers Estates Limited, this Tribunal is of the view that SARFAESI proceedings initiated against plots purchased by individual owners cannot be permitted to go.

In this view of the matter, the following order is passed.

Order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai dated 24.3.2017 passed in SA No.348/2008 is set aside and Appeal, RA(SA) No.12/2018 filed by Mrs. E. Carolin Prabha is allowed. Consequently, SA No.348/2008 is allowed.

Appeals, RA(SA) 163/2018 and RA(SA) 41/2019 filed by Indian Bank and the Auction Purchaser respectively are dismissed by confirming the Order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai dated 7.1.2016 passed in SA No.409/2014 filed by Mr. V. Satyanarayanan. Bank is directed to refund the sale consideration to the auction purchaser with interest applicable to Fixed Deposit from the date of deposit made by him till the date of payment and also the stamp duty and the registration charges incurred by him with interest at 6% p.a.(simple) from the date of payment made by him till the date of payment.

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.