STATE BANK OF INDIA vs SRI NARAYANA TRADERS on 3 November 2026

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

IA 1521/2026 (Urgent) & IA 1522/2026 (Stay) in R.A(S.A):175/2026

State Bank of India V/S Shri Narayana Traders & 4 ors 03/11/2026

IA 1521/2026 (Urgent) in RA (SA) 175/2026

This application is filed for hearing the appeal RA (SA) 175 of 2026 on an urgent basis.

Learned Counsel for both sides are present.

The other side has no serious objection to this urgent application.

Therefore, urgent application IA 1521 of 2026 is allowed.

RA (SA) 175/2026 & RA (SA) 176/2026 & RA (SA) 177/2026

IA 1521 of 2026 (Urgent) in RA (SA) 175 of 2026 is allowed.

IA 1519 of 2026 (Urgent) in RA (SA) 176 of 2026 is allowed.

IA 1517 of 2026 (Urgent) in RA (SA) 177 of 2026 is allowed.

Learned Counsel for both sides are present.

These appeals are filed against the common order passed in SA No. 178 of 2023, SA No. 508 of 2023, SA No. 279 of 2024, and SA No. 778 of 2025 by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai on 2.7.2026.

It is a submission of the Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant that –

i) SA No. 178 of 2023 has been filed to set aside the sale notice dated 18.4.2023 fixing the sale on 19.5.2023;

ii) SA No. 508 of 2023 has been filed to set aside the sale notice dated 7.9.2023 fixing the sale on 29.9.2023;

iii) SA No. 279 of 2024 has been filed to set aside the sale notice dated 26.3.2024 fixing the sale on 18.4.2024; and,

iv) SA No. 778 of 2025 has been filed to set aside the possession notice dated 7.5.2022.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for Petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation, the Petitioner filed an appeal in RA SA No. 89 of 2024 against the order dated 17.5.2024 passed in SA No. 704 of 2023 by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai. In the said order, this Tribunal observed with regard to the publication of possession notice as follows:

“When it is found on evidence that publication of possession notice in ‘The Hindu’ on 11.5.2022 and in ‘Dinathandi’ dated 11.5.2022 is proved by production of copies of paper publication, it is expected from Learned Presiding Officer that if it is found that the copy of paper publication is not legible, Learned Presiding Officer should have given instruction to Counsel for Bank to produce legible copy. Without resorting to do so, taking this ground for allowing the Securitization Application, is not correct.”

When that was the observation of the DRAT, Chennai, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai gave a finding in the impugned order at para 8 that the validity of the possession notice had already been conclusively determined in SA No. 704 of 2023 and the issue had attained finality. The appeal, filed against the order in SA 704 of 2023 in RA SA No. 89 of 2024, was allowed by DRAT, Chennai by setting aside the order passed in SA No. 704 of 2023, resulting in the dismissal of SA No.704 of 2023. When that being the case, the observation made by the Learned Presiding Officer that the validity of the possession notice had already been conclusively determined is not appropriate when SA No. 704 of 2023 filed challenging the possession notice was dismissed. It is further observed that SA No. 75 of 2023 filed challenging the sale notice dated 21.1.2023 fixing the sale on 3.3.2023 had become infructuous in view of non-conclusion of sale for want of bidders.

On the service of sale notice, it was observed that the sale notice was served through post and by affixture. However, with regard to publication of sale notice, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai observed that the publication produced do not disclose the name of the newspaper, date of publication, and place/edition of the publication, and in the absence of these particulars, the authenticity of the newspaper publication cannot be verified. It was also observed that in the sale notice, the terms and conditions of the sale have not been provided, but only a link has been given, making it difficult to verify whether the terms and conditions of the sale were complied by the auction purchaser.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that these observations are not true and against evidence. If there is any doubt with regard to the name of the newspaper, the date of publication, and the place of publication, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai ought to have been given an opportunity to the Petitioner to clear the doubt.

But without doing so, allowing the Securitization Applications on these grounds is not correct.

Finally, it is submitted that the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, after allowing the securitisation applications SA No. 508 of 2023, SA No. 279 of 2024, SA No. 178 of 2023, and disposing of SA No. 778 of 2025, set aside the sale notice dated 18.4.2023 and sale held on 19.5.2023. Consequently, the sale certificate dated 3.7.2023 was also set aside. Further directions were also issued to refund the entire sale consideration with interest at 4% to the auction purchaser, along with stamp duty and registration charges. The damning direction is that the Learned Registrar was directed to inform the Rajapalayam Sub-Registrar office about this order to cancel the registration of sale certificate dated 3.7.2023.

It is the submission of the Appellant that Appellant has the right of appeal and so this appeal is filed. When appeal is filed and pending, if the directions of the Learned Presiding Officer are executed, the Appellant will be gravely penalized, even in the event of succeeding in this appeal. Thus, he seeks the stay of operation of the order dated 2.7.2026 of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai.

Learned Counsel of M/s. Aiyar & Dolia offers to file vakalat for the Respondents and seeks time to file counter.

In the light of the detailed narrations on the grounds against the impugned order and assailing the impugned order on the grounds aforesaid, this Tribunal finds that the Petitioner has made a prima facie case, and arguable points in the appeal on the merits of the order. Implementing the directions given in the order would greatly prejudice the Petitioner. Thus, this Tribunal stays the operation of the order dated 2.7.2026 of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, till further orders.

List the matter on 19.11.2026 for filing of vakalat and counter of the Respondents.

Sd/-

Chairperson