Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 05 DRAT CK 2858

M/s. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited vs G. Saravanan

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai · Decided on 4 May 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Chandrasekharan
CASE NUMBER
MA (SA) 17/2026

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

12 paragraphs · 661 words

ORDER

This appeal is filed against the interim order dated 20.02.,2026 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai in IA 744/2026 in SA 162/2026.

2.

By the said order, Learned Presiding Officer permitted the bank to proceed with the sale but not to confirm the sale till 29.6.2026 pursuant to the sale notice dated 9.2.2026 and to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli passed in CrMP 12845/25 on 29.1.2026, subject to payment of 30% of the suit amount of Rs.1,40,35,789.71p in four equal instalments starting from 23.3.2026 ending with 25.6.2026. Aggrieved against this order, this appeal is filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that SA No.162/26 was filed to set aside the order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli dated 29.1.2026, passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Neither the sale notice nor the sale was the issue in SA 162/26 and there was no challenge to the sale measures. When there is no challenge to the sale measures and the challenge was only in respect of the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, Stay against the confirmation of sale is not in accordance with law. Thus, this appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he also challenged the sale measures and he wants to produce relevant documents. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that he had also challenged the e-auction sale notice dated 6.3.2026 in the Securitization Application. Originally, this prayer was not added at the time of filing the Securitization Application. However, before giving the diary number, when the application was under scrutiny, the Respondent included the prayer to set aside the e-auction sale notice dated 6.3.2026 by handwriting. The prayer to set aside the e-auction sale notice dated 6.3.2026 in hand written is produced for the perusal of this Tribunal.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant strictly opposed this claim and submitted that the copy supplied to the Respondent before the Tribunal does not include the prayer to set aside the e-auction sale notice dated 6.3.2026.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent also produced a copy of the Memo dated 6.4.2026 wherein the Learned Counsel for the Respondent in SA 162/2026, viz. the Appellant herein, stated that “the Applicant filed the SA 162/26 challenging the e-auction sale notice dated 6.3.2026, and details of the successful bidder is given, and directed the applicant to implead the auction purchaser”. Learned Counsel for the Appellant disputes this Memo dated 6.4.2026 filed before the DRT, Madurai on the ground that he had no knowledge about the filing of the said Memo.

7.

In view of the rival submissions with regard to challenge to the sale measures, this Tribunal summoned the original securitization application in SA 162/2026 filed before the Tribunal.

8.

On going through the original SA 162/2026, this Tribunal finds that certain grounds like (i) not considering the representation seeking to furnish the details of loan, interest levied and statement of accounts while issuing sale notice, (ii) fixing the lesser market value for the property etc. were taken with the prayer, of course, written in hand writing ‘(iii) to set aside the e-auction sale dated 09.02.2026’.

9.

Therefore, this Tribunal finds that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank that without challenging the sale proceedings, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, granted Stay against the confirmation of sale is not correct.

10.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent herein that as per the conditional order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, two instalments out of four instalments have been complied and still there is a time to comply with the remaining instalments.

11.

In such view of the matter, this Tribunal is of the view that the appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.