V Saravanan vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK on 16 September 2026

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

M.A(S.A):95/2026

V Saravanan V/S Indian Overseas Bank

16/09/2026

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT- III, Chennai in Stay Application filed in IA 1778/2026 in SA 531/20-26. SA 531/2026 has been filed to set aside the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No. 1472/2026, dated 02.07.2026. When the Stay application was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the Tribunal submitted that secured property had already been sold on 29.03.2025 and sale certificate was issued on 17.05.2025 and also registered in favour of the auction purchaser. Therefore, learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai observed that in view of the sale of the property, directed the petitioner to approach the respondent-Bank for amicable settlement and dismissed the Stay application. Aggrieved against this order, this appeal is filed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not served with demand notice issued under Section 13 (2), possession notice and sale notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Appellant learnt that demand notice was sent to a different address than it was furnished at the time of availing the loan by the appellant. The Bank has filed OS 305/2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, for recovery of Rs.17,29,477/- together with interest at the rate of 9.10%p.a. compounded monthly. The said suit was decreed on 16.12.2024. The suit was filed for the same loan transaction for which, SARFAESI measures was initiated. The respondent-Bank deliberately omitted to mention about the filing and adjudication of the suit and also the sale of the secured asset in the SARFAESI measures. Material and necessary particulars are suppressed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and order was obtained on wrong and false submission and therefore, securitization application has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, without considering these issues on merit, dismissed the Stay application. Thus, he prays for setting aside the order impugned. Mr. Anand Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that he has only instructions to appear and yet to get vakalath and thus, time to file vakalath and reply. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is in possession of the secured asset and the respondent-Bank is trying to take physical possession and thus, seeks protection.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the Bank is taking steps for getting physical possession. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-Bank is deferred from taking physical possession of the secured asset till the next hearing. Post the matter on 22.10.2026. Sd/-

Chairperson