Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Sree Selvaganapathy Agro industries vs punjab national bank on 10 September 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 1341/2026 (Urgent) in IA 1342/2026 (Waiver) in A.IR:2478/2026
Sree Selvaganapathy Agro Industries & 4 Ors V/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd 10/09/2026
Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, this urgent application is allowed. IA 1342/2026 (Waiver) These appeals are filed against the common order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in SA 370/2023 and SA 620/2024, on 13.07.2026. SA 370/2023 has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, dated 13.04.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.4801/2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. SA 620/2024 has been filed to set aside and quash the possession notice dated 18.01.2023 issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Both the securitization applications have been together and a common order was passed dismissing both the securitization application on 13.07.2026. Aggrieved against the order passed in SA 370/2023, appeal in AIR 2476/2026 is filed and aggrieved against the order passed in SA 624/2024, appeal in AIR 2478/2026 is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent issued four demand notices. The last of which. was issued on 11.10.2022. The demand notice issued on 11.10.2022 to the petitioners/appellants shows that this demand notice was signed by the authorized officer Mr. Kumaresan, R., whereas, the respondent filed demand notice dated 11.10.2022 and it shows that it was signed by the authorized officer Mr.R.Naveen. This discrepancy is not explained. Despite raising this ground during the course of the arguments, to the effect that which demand notice is valid, it has not been considered by the DRT. He further brought to the notice of this Tribunal to the amount claimed at Rs.1,66,08,261/- in schedule-I of the demand notice. It is his further submission that this amount reflects the capitalization of the penal interest
When this Tribunal pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners that the afore said sum does not confine to penal interest alone, but, it includes park/penal/bounced and other charges, learned counsel for the petitioners re-iterated the submission that penal interest and other charges are capitalized and it is illegal. In the possession notice dated 18.01.2023 the signature of the authorized officer is not found and only the seal of the respondent-financial institution is found. He also submitted that after receiving the possession notice, as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No23173/2023, petitioners made payment of Rs.2,87,00,000/-. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks waiver of pre-deposit. No other ground is urged. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to get instructions. Therefore, post the matter on 16.09.2026. Parties are directed to maintain status quo, as on today, till next hearing.
Sd/-
Chairperson