Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs A R K Fuel Station on 22 October 2026
P a g e 1 | 4
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 22nd day of October, 2026
PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
CHAIRPERSON
RA (SA) 72 of 2026
(arising out of SA No. 261 of 2024 on the file of DRT-II, Karnataka at Bengaluru)
Between
The Authorized Officer,
Central Bank of India,
No. 147, K51,
Rama Villas Road,
K.R. Mohalla,
Mysore – 570 024
… Appellant
And
M/s. A.R.K. Fuel Station,
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr. Rahman Khan,
No-A, Abdul Kalam Azad Circle,
(Highway Circle),
Industrial Area,
K.R. Mohalla,
Mysore – 570 024
... Respondent
Counsel for Appellant:
M/s. Anil Relwani
Counsel for Respondent:
M/s. D. Durai Raj
P a g e 2 | 4
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.
ORDER
This appeal is filed against the final order passed in SA No. 261 of 2024 by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Karnataka at Bengaluru on 30.1.2026.
2. SA No. 261 of 2024 has been filed to set aside the possession notice dated 6.5.2024. It appears that objections have not been filed in the Securitization Application. Therefore, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT- II, Karnataka at Bengaluru, recording the reasons, allowed the Securitization Application.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant Bank submitted that possession notice dated 06.05.2024, issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, has been served on the respondent, affixed and published in English and in Vernacular news papers. Proof of service, affixure and paper publication have been established by producing acknowledgement card, photograph to show the affixure and copies of English and Vernacular news papers. The learned Presiding Officer in para-6 of the impugned order recorded the grounds raised by the appellant, like (i) no sufficient opportunity was given to clear the liability and settle the account; (ii) Bank has hurriedly issued the possession notice without giving adequate time to settle the liability and (iii) to consider the various repayments made after issuing the demand notice, gave the finding that these grounds are hardly sufficient to decide the case in favour of the respondent and if the aforesaid contention is accepted, it would not invalidate the proceedings for the reason that the respondent has not put forth any evidence in support of his entitlement of time to settle the loan account. However, in Para-7, it was observed that when there is specific contention in para-9 that classification of account as NPA is blatant violation of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. This contention was omitted to be controverted by the appellant. Thus, the uncontroverted P a g e 3 | 4
contention let the Tribunal to accept the contention as correct. In this view of the matter allowed the securitization application.
4. In continuation of his submission, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank that after issuance of the possession notice dated 06.05.2024, the respondent came to the Bank and paid some amount and therefore, no further proceedings had been initiated on the basis of the possession notice. When the default continued again, the Bank issued a fresh possession notice dated 25.05.2024. This possession notice also served on the respondent. Proof of service, affixure and publication are proved by acknowledgement card, photograph to show the affixure and copies of Engish and Vernacular news papers to show the publication of possession notice. The possession notice dated 25.05.2024 has not been challenged by the respondent.
5. Despite giving sufficient opportunities, there is no representation for the Respondent. In fact, on 14.10.2026, this Tribunal recorded in the proceedings that at the request of the Learned Counsel for Respondent, the case is adjourned to 22.10.2026 for arguments, and failing to argue the matter would result in passing orders in this appeal. Despite this specific condition for adjournment, there is no representation for the Respondent today.
6. The main ground raised in this appeal is that the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Karnataka allowed the Securitization Application for not filing the objections. It is seen from the submissions of the Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank and records produced that after the issuance of possession notice dated 6.5.2024, Respondent came to the Bank and paid some amount and, therefore, no proceedings were initiated on the basis of the possession notice. When default continued again, the Bank issued a fresh possession notice on 25.5.2024 which was served on the Respondent. Proof of service, affixture, and publication were also produced as detailed above.
P a g e 4 | 4
Most importantly, the possession notice dated 25.5.2024 has not been challenged by the Respondent.
7. In this view of the matter, the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Karnataka at Bengaluru is set aside and this matter is remanded back to DRT-II, Karnataka at Bengaluru for giving an opportunity to the Appellant Bank to file objections to the Securitization Application and for disposal of the Securitization Application SA No.261 of 2024 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, appeal RA (SA) 72 of 2026 is disposed of with the directions as above.
9. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
10. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON