Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SUKUMARAN SUJATHAN vs ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD on 4 November 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 309/2019 (STAY) IN A.IR:109/2019
Sukumaran Sujathan & Anr V/S Arcil & Ors 04/11/2026
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
This matter is taken up on the basis of the order dated 3.9.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (DRT) No.161 of 2019.
Earlier, this Tribunal passed an order in the waiver application IA 308 of 2019 on 6.9.2019 directing the Petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs.2.00 crores for entertaining the appeal. Aggrieved against this order, the Petitioners filed the aforesaid OP (DRT) No. 161 of 2019. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, vide order passed on 3.9.2026, observed that as per the dictum laid down in Sidha Neelkanth’s case, if a challenge raised by the aggrieved person is regarding the notice issued under Section 13(2) / 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the debt due will be the amount as stated in the Section 13(2) notice, along with the interest. Since this Tribunal directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs.2.00 crores on the basis of rough estimate, the order passed in the waiver application IA 308 of 2019 is set aside and this Tribunal is directed to hear the matter afresh and determine the pre-deposit on the basis of debt due by following the principles of Sidha Neelkanth’s case.
Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that after receiving the demand notice, Petitioners made a payment of Rs.55.00 lakhs on 17.2.2010, and Rs.95.00 lakhs on 1.6.2010. The assignor of this loan to R1 and R2 Respondent Financial Institution had secured some amount from the Liquidator in winding up proceedings initiated before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. These amounts should have been taken into consideration for determination of the debt due and the pre-deposit.
In the said circumstances, Learned Counsel for Respondents R1 and R2 is directed to state as to whether the amounts aforesaid mentioned by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have been received by R1 and R2, and state the due as on the date of filing this appeal, after giving credit to all these payments, if the payments are received.
List the matter on 11.11.2026 for further proceedings.
Sd/-
Chairperson