The Authorised Officer, Union Bank Of India vs M/s Janatha Motors & Ors.

Learned Counsel for both sides are present.

This appeal is filed against the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai in IA 1321/2025 in SA No.456/2025 dated 29.7.2025 Learned Presiding Officer, after recording the submissions of Learned Counsel appearing for parties, recorded that there are two different orders from two different Ld. CJMs for a single loan account and the applicant has filed two different SAs, therefore, defendant bank/auction purchaser is directed to maintain status quo as on that day with regard to the structure of the property subject to deposit of 5% of the amount due within 10 days and further to deposit an equal sum within one month thereafter.

It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant bank that there were two different properties and two applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were filed before two different Ld. CJM Courts. Therefore, two different orders have been passed for the same loan account. Though loan was single, the owners of the properties are different persons. Properties are situated in different locations, coming under two different CJM courts’ jurisdiction. In the said background, two different orders under Section 14 were obtained from two different Ld. CJMs. Learned Presiding Officer used this only ground for granting status quo. Therefore, this appeal is filed.

In reply to this submission, Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents could only comply with the first part of the condition. In view of non compliance of the second part, stay application was dismissed. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal and the validity of the orders passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, can be decided in the main SA, which is pending. In reply, Learned Counsel for the appellant bank submitted that possession had been delivered to the auction purchaser prior to filing of the aforesaid SA. Auction Purchaser is not a party in the SA. But, the interim order was granted against the auction purchaser also.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

From the submissions made and recorded above, it can be gathered that though there was only one loan account, there are two properties in which security interest was created by two different owners. Both properties are situated in different locations coming under two different CJM Courts. Therefore, obtaining two different orders from two different Ld. CJMs under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, cannot be put to challenge. Thus, Learned Presiding Officer’s finding is necessarily to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

Be that as it may. In view of the non compliance of the conditional order, the stay application was dismissed, by the Tribunal. This appeal is filed against the order passed in the stay application. In view of the dismissal of the stay application, nothing survives in this appeal. Parties are at liberty to raise all the grounds raised now, before DRT in the SA.

Accordingly, this Appeal MA (SA) 68/2025 is disposed of. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.