T. Rajendran vs Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. & Ors.

This transfer petition is taken up, as the urgent application IA 358 of 2026 in this transfer petition is allowed.

Learned Counsel for both sides are present.

This Transfer Petition is filed for transferring OA 158 of 2021 pending before DRT, Madurai to DRT-III, Chennai, to try along with SA 287 of 2025.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner filed SA 287 of 2025 seeking directions against the Bank “not to issue sale certificate in pursuance to the auction dated 27.3.2025.” He also informed that he amended the prayer to challenge the sale held. The Original Application has been filed by the Respondent Bank to recover a sum of Rs.2,65,83,325.53p with subsequent interest and costs and for other reliefs, etc. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that property was grossly under-valued and sold in the SARFAESI sale. Had they properly valued the property and sold, the entire debt would have been discharged. Not satisfied with the sale of the secured asset, the Bank is trying to attach other properties of the Petitioner in OA No. 158 of 2021.

In the said circumstances, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that only when both the cases applied together by a single Presiding Officer, the adjudication will be done properly, without giving any room for contradictory findings.

In reply, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank opposes this transfer petition and submits that there was no plea taken in the SARFAESI appeal with regard to under-valuation of the property. It is not required to try both the matters by a single Presiding Officer.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

Admittedly, the Bank has initiated simultaneous measures under the RDB Act,1993 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 for recovery of the amount. The Original Application has been filed for recovery of the amount as mentioned earlier. Challenging the sale measures, Petitioner filed SA 287 of 2025. The scope and objectives of RDB Act, 1993 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 are totally different. Under the RDB Act, 1993, the Bank tries to recover the amount due to it. Under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Bank initiates measures for taking possession of the security asset and its sale for recovery of its due. It is a settled proposition of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Transcore Vs. Union of India reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 that the Bank / Financial Institution are empowered to proceed under both the Acts simultaneously. That has been done in this case. The nature of dispute involved and the nature of enquiry in both the matters i.e., in the Original Application and the Securitization Application, are totally different. In the Original Application proceedings, the basis is whether the Bank has made out a ground for recovery of the amount claimed as due. The basis of the Securitization Application is whether the Bank followed the mandatory requirements under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in bringing the property for sale. It is not required that both the matters should be tried by the same Presiding Officer.

Therefore, this Tribunal finds that there is no merit in filing the Transfer Petition, and in this view of the matter, the Transfer Petition is dismissed.

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.