The Authorized Officer, M/s. Jana Small Finance Bank Limited vs Mrs. S.Lavanya

This Appeal is filed against the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in TSA 17/2024 on 24.02.2025.

The TSA was allowed primarily on the ground that the Respondent has not filed counter to the SA. As against the said order, this Appeal is filed.

There is no representation for Respondent today as well as on the earlier date of hearing on 03.02.2026 and 18.02.2026. It is specifically recorded on 18.02.2026 that there was no representation for Respondent and the scope of this Appeal is limited as to whether allowing the TSA 17/2024 for not filing the counter is acceptable. With a view to give an opportunity to the Respondent, this Appeal was adjourned from 18.02.2026 to 05.03.2026 for hearing this Appeal. It was made clear that in the event of no representation for the Respondent on that day, the Appeal will be disposed of on the basis of the records available and on the submissions of the Learned Counsel for Appellant. Despite specific stipulation that this Appeal will disposed of today, there is no representation for Respondent today as well. Therefore, this Tribunal proceeded to dispose of this Appeal.

The reading of the impugned order shows that the Learned Presiding Officer has recorded that there was no representation for Respondent Bank on 24.02.2025 despite service of notice in the Securitisation Application on 26.07.2024. The Respondent Bank has not even filed a Vakalat or any objection countering the grounds raised in the SA. In the said background, Learned Presiding Officer allowed the SA and set aside the physical possession notice dated 08.06.2024 and restored the physical possession of the secured asset.

Grounds (i) to (viii) have been raised in support of the Securitisation Application. Learned Presiding Officer, without considering the grounds raised or examining whether the said grounds raised were sufficient enough to allow the Securitisation Application, allowed the Securitisation Application solely on the ground that there was no representation for the Respondent Bank, and that no Vakalat/Counter had been filed. Even an ex parte order ought to record reasons justifying the allowing/ dismissal of the Application. Without discussing the grounds raised in the Securitisation Application, and giving reasons for allowing the SA, adverting to the grounds raised, allowing the SA, is not correct and in accordance with law. The order is an unreasoned order and requires to be set aside.

In this view of the matter, this Appeal in RA (SA) 75/2025 is allowed. The order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in TSA No.17/2024 is set aside. Learned Presiding Officer is directed to afford an opportunity to the Appellant to file counter/objection to the Securitisaton Application and dispose of the Securitisation Application, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.