Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
VARALAKSHMI vs INDIAN BANK on 11 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 1335/2026 (Urgent) in IA 1336/2026 (Waiver) in A.IR:2441/2026
Varalakshmi V/S The AO,Indian Bank
11/09/2026
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
This application is filed to hear the waiver application IA 1336 of 2026 on an urgent basis.
The other side has no serious objection to this urgent application.
Therefore, urgent application IA 1335 of 2026 is allowed.
IA 1336/2026 (Waiver)
Urgent application IA 1335 of 2026 is allowed.
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
This appeal is filed against the final order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in SA No. 529 of 2025 on 10.8.2026.
SA No. 529 of 2025 has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No. 2719 of 2025 on 8.4.2025.
It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner had made payments to the tune of Rs.50.00 lakhs prior to issuance of the demand notice on 21.2.2024. Without giving credit to these payments, the impugned demand notice was issued by wrongly classifying the account as NPA. Petitioner earlier challenged the sale in SA No.171 of 2025. When this Securitization Application was pending, the Respondent Bank issued impugned order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. No account statement was produced before the DRT to justify the amount claimed in the demand notice. On these grounds, the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,2002 was challenged. Without considering those grounds, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, dismissed the Securitization Application and, thus, this appeal. On these grounds, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks waiver of pre-deposit. No other ground is urged in support of the waiver of pre- deposit.
Responding to these submissions, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that in the SARFAESI pleadings it is averred that after receiving the demand notice, Petitioner approached the Respondent Bank to grant reasonable time to settle the loan account. There is no pleading taken with regard to not adjusting the amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs said to have been paid, and the wrong classification of the account as NPA. It is further submitted that Petitioner earlier challenged the interim order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai before this Tribunal in MA (SA) 64 of 2025. That MA (SA) 64 of 2025 was disposed of by giving directions to the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai to dispose the main Securitization Application. Accordingly, the main Securitization Application was disposed and this appeal is filed.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank seeks time to inform this Tribunal as to what is the current outstanding due on the date of filing this appeal, without considering the sale price, and giving credit to payments, if any, made by the Petitioner.
Therefore, post the matter on 16.9.2026 for production of information by the Respondent Bank, as above.
Sd/-
Chairperson