CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 09 DRAT CK 6084

Abdul Latheef vs The Urban Co-op Bank No. 1758 Perinthalmanna & Anr.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai · Decided on 10 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Chandrasekharan, Chairperson
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
MA (SA) 19 of 2026 (arising out of IA No. 281 of 2026 in SA No.36 of 2026 on the file of DRT-I, Kerala at Ernakulam)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 534 words

Learned Counsel for both sides are present.

2.

Against the order dated 20.1.2026 passed in IA No.280 of 2026 and IA No.281 of 2026 in SA 36 of 2026 by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kerala at Ernakulam, this appeal is filed.

3.

It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for Appellant that SA No.36 of 2026 has been filed to -

a)

Declare the initiation of proceedings under Annexure A1 sale notice dated 20.9.2025 and Annexure A2 sale confirmation advice dated 14.10.2025, as null and void.

b)

Set aside the sale conducted on 14.10.2025 in favour of the 2nd Defendant and direct the 1st Defendant to accept balance sale amount from the Applicant.

c)

Defer all further proceedings and for incidental and consequential relief.

4.

In the said Securitization Application, an Interlocutory Application IA No. 280 of 2026 has been moved for staying further proceedings. The Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kerala at Ernakulam has refused to grant the stay prayed for in IA No. 280 of 2026. Thus, this appeal. Learned Counsel for Appellant prays to restrain the 2nd Respondent from making any further alienation.

5.

Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank submitted that the sale was held and the sale certificate issued. Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submits that the entire sale consideration was paid, and sale certificate issued. Therefore, there is no need to grant any stay.

6.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

7.

A careful reading of the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kerala at Ernakulam shows that since there was confirmation of sale and the sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser, and that third-party interest has been created, it would be just and necessary to give an opportunity to the Respondents, especially the 2nd Respondent, the auction purchaser, to file counter affidavit and hear them in the stay application. In this view of the matter, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kerala at Ernakulam was not inclined to grant an interim order at the stage when the stay application was heard. This is not an order which is appealable. It is only a proceeding refusing to grant stay at that stage with a view to give an opportunity to the Respondents to file counter. Despite that, Appellant filed this appeal.

8.

Be that as it may. SA No.36 of 2026, filed for challenging the sale notice and the sale certificate, is still pending. Now the sale is over, and the sale certificate is also issued. Therefore, this tribunal is of the view that this appeal can be disposed by giving directions to the Respondents to file counter, if not already filed, in the stay application in IA 280 of 2026 in SA No. 36 of 2026 and with a direction to the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kerala at Ernakulam to dispose the stay application on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

9.

Accordingly, this appeal MA (SA) 19/2026 is disposed, with the directions to the Respondents and the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Kerala at Ernakulam, as indicated above.

10.

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

11.

Pending IA’s, if any, stand closed.