Published: · Source checked:
Evidence of affixture and newspaper publication changed the procedural outcome in JANA Small Finance v. Yoganada Swamy. On 15 October 2026, DRAT Chennai set aside the DRT's service-based order and required a fresh merits decision considering the evidence produced. The remand did not amount to final approval of every SARFAESI measure. Official order, reasoning and concluding directions.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Chennai |
| Chairperson | Justice G. Chandrasekharan |
| Case | RA(SA)120/2026; S.A. 817/2022 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | The Authorised Officer, JANA Small Finance Limited v. Yoganada Swamy TA and Shalini S |
What DRT had set aside
S.A. 817/2022 challenged the magistrate's order of 18 November 2022 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. DRT-I, Bangalore had allowed the application on 16 March 2026 because proper service of the demand notice was not established. It consequently set aside the demand notice, possession notice and Section 14 order. Original PDF, pages 1–2.
The DRT's concern was evidentiary: the bank had not shown postal service or the attempted service and affixture needed before reliance on publication. Its decision should not be reduced to a statement that newspaper publication is legally irrelevant in every case.
The additional record before DRAT
The bank produced a copy of an acknowledgment card and a photograph relied on as proof of affixture of the 16 August 2021 demand notice. It also relied on publication, which the order describes as undisputed. The respondents remained ex parte in the appeal. Original PDF, pages 2–3.
DRAT considered the record and concluded that the DRT's finding of improper service was not correct in the circumstances. Its reasoning treated the demand notice as served through affixture and publication as required under Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. That is the tribunal's application to this evidentiary record, not a free-standing instruction that a creditor may always skip ordinary service. Original PDF, concluding reasoning.
The bank also alleged that possession had been taken and the respondents had re-entered, with a criminal complaint pending. This note does not turn that submission into a criminal finding or rely on it to determine title or possession rights.
The actual relief was remand
DRAT set aside the 16 March 2026 order, remitted S.A. 817/2022 to DRT-I, Bangalore, and directed a merits decision in light of the affixture and publication evidence. The appeal was allowed to that extent; parties bore their own costs and pending applications were closed. Concluding directions.
That form of relief matters to both sides. The bank secured reconsideration of a service-based defeat; it did not receive an appellate declaration that every objection in the S.A. failed. The borrowers' ex parte position in the appeal likewise did not convert the remand into a final adjudication of all enforcement issues.
The evidence lesson
A service file should distinguish the notice itself from proof of each attempted or completed mode of service. An acknowledgment, a photograph, the date of affixture and the publication record establish different parts of the chronology. Counsel should explain the link rather than treat a bundle of documents as self-explanatory.
This is an evidentiary lesson from the order, not an exhaustive statement of Rule 3 or current service requirements. A live case requires the applicable text and a complete record of the steps actually taken. The original order uses unnumbered substantive passages, so this note gives original-page and concluding-direction references rather than inventing paragraph numbers.
Questions about the decision
Is publication alone always sufficient?
The order does not establish that general proposition. It assessed affixture, publication and the other evidence in this appeal.
Were all SARFAESI objections finally rejected?
No. DRAT expressly required the S.A. to be decided on its merits after remand. Concluding directions.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 15 October 2026, unnumbered reasoning and concluding directions, original pages 1–4. The analysis reports that decision as delivered. Primary source and statutory references were checked on 1 November 2026; later treatment has not been exhaustively established. No absence of an appeal, stay, variation or subsequent compliance is asserted.