AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This petition is filed for transferring SA 288/2024 on the file of the DRT-III, Chennai to any other DRT, in Tamil Nadu.
The grounds pleaded supporting the transfer of the SA 288/2024 are that the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, is prejudicial to the interests of the applicants and the merits of the case; failed to give due consideration to the facts of the case and refused to go into the merits of the case; failed to give due consideration to the applicants’ submission and refused to examine the merits of the case; pre-determining of issues involved and therefore there is reasonable apprehension of bias against the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai.
In the said circumstances, it is alleged that the applicants lost confidence and fair adjudication before the DRT-III, Chennai and seek for transfer of the case. That apart, learned counsel for the applicants, during the course of the submission, informed that IA 2329/2025 filed for raising additional grounds is not disposed so far. Without disposing such application, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai is trying to dispose the main securitization application itself. It is further submitted that the learned Presiding Officer shows selective urgency in the matter of disposal of the SA.
Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is unfounded. There are instances that the cases were adjourned for long date. When the advance hearing application filed by the auction purchaser, the case was taken up for hearing. There can be no comparative analysis of case pending before the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for R2 submitted that the auction purchaser invested huge amount of Rs.6,00,00,000/- in the property and therefore, the auction purchaser entitled to protect his right by way of early hearing. The matter had been adjourned at times for a longer period and only on the advance hearing application filed by the auction purchaser, the hearing was advanced and heard.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
In view of the specific allegations made against the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, this Tribunal called for remarks from the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai. The learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai submitted a detailed report denying the allegations made in the transfer petition. The report of the learned Presiding Officer, shows that SA 288/2024 was filed on 24.05.2024 challenging the sale held on 09.05.2024. The case was moved before the Tribunal on 03.06.2024 and the Tribunal directed the Bank to maintain Status Quo as on date and notice was ordered to respondent-Bank returnable by 21.06.2024. On 21.10.2024, respondent-Bank entered appearance, filed counter and typed set of documents. The case was posted for arguments on 02.01.2025. Applicants filed IA 2197/2025 for impleading the auction purchaser and that was allowed on 16.04.2025. The case was posted to 04.06.2025 for filing counter of auction purchaser. On 04.06.2025 and 22.07.2025, the case was adjourned by notification to 06.10.2025. On the basis of the advance hearing application in IA 1885/2025, the case was listed on 08.09.2025. On that day, applicants submitted a memo seeking certain documents from respondent-Bank. That proceedings reads as follows:-
“ Both the counsels are present in I and II round. Respondent Bank has filed IA No.1885/2025 for advancing the matter, matter taken on board allowing the IA.
Counsel for applicant submits that he has filed a memo seeking for certain documents to which the bank hank has already filed by way of a reply memo along with the supporting documents.
Counsel for the bank submits that the details as sort by the applicant is already produced by the auction purchaser, counsel for the bank seeks time to produce the details of the documents as sort by the applicant. List the matter on 18.09.2025 for arguments finally”.
On 18.09.2025, at the request of the learned counsel, the matter was adjourned to 24.09.2025 finally. In the meanwhile, applicants filed IA 2329/2025 seeking permission to raise additional grounds. On 24.09.2025, the matter was adjourned by notification to 17.10.2025. On 17.10.2025, arguments of the applicants, respondent-Bank and auction purchaser were heard and posted to 06.11.2025 for further arguments. On 06.11.2025, applicants filed written submissions along with all the citations after serving copies to other side. Case was posted to 07.11.2025 for hearing the parties. On 07.11.2025, the respondent-Bank and auction purchaser were heard and the matter was taken as part-heard. For applicants’ argument, case was adjourned to 03.12.2025. On 03.12.2025, the case was adjourned to 09.06.2026 since the learned Presiding Officer was travelling back from National Judicial Academy, Bhopal. Again the matter was listed on 24.12.2025 on the filing of the advance hearing application by the auction purchaser and the Bank. On that day, the applicants/ party-in-person sought time for arguments and on request, matter was posted to 30.01.2026. On 30.01.2026, applicants-party-in-person appeared and submitted that she had filed a transfer petition before this Tribunal.
From the sequence of events narrated in the report, it could be seen that the applicants participated in the enquiry proceedings till the argument stage. It is not a case where the case was adjourned on day-to-day basis for emergent disposal. Reasonable time was given in between two adjournments and on application either by the Bank or auction purchaser to advance the hearing of the matter when the matter was adjourned for a longer date, it was taken up for hearing. Therefore, no motive can be attributed against the learned Presiding Officer for hearing the matter on the basis of the advance hearing application filed by the Bank or auction purchaser. Each case differs on facts and urgency, therefore, there can be no comparison of two cases in the matter of adjournment.
In such circumstances, this Tribunal finds that there is absolutely no merits in the transfer application for transferring the case from DRT-III, Chennai to any other Tribunal on the grounds raised in the transfer petition. Therefore, this transfer petition is dismissed with the costs of the respondents. The learned Presiding Officer is directed to dispose the IA 2329/2025 first and then dispose the main SA 288/2024 finally as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, this transfer petition is dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.