Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
ARUMUGAKANI vs IDBI BANK on 12 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 1653/2026 (Waiver) in A.IR:3104/2026
Arumugakani V/S IDBI Bank Ltd & anr
12/11/2026
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and R1 Bank are present.
This appeal is filed against the order dated 12.10.2026 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai dismissing the stay application filed in IA No.2392 of 2026 in SA No.708 of 2026.
It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for Petitioner that SARFAESI measures for the sale of the property had been taken without following the RBI guidelines. The secured asset was not properly valued; rather, under- valued and sold for a low price. The market value of the property is more than Rs.45/- crores.
It is the further submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the secured asset was valued and reserve price was fixed at Rs.12 crores. The secured asset is 2.15 acres. The loan outstanding is Rs.4,56,79,096.21p. Sale of a portion of the secured asset i.e., 1/3, would have satisfied the loan due, but the Bank has sold the entire property for the amount of Rs.12,11,00,000/- and it amounts to excessive execution. This ground was raised before the learned Presiding Officer, but it was not considered on merits and dismissed the Stay application on the ground that the sale is already over and third party interest is created. Now the respondent is trying to register the sale certificate. After the sale of the property Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4,25,00,000/. A separate application has been filed challenging the sale and it is pending in SA No.737 of 2026 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai. On these grounds, the Petitioner seeks waiver of pre- deposit. No other ground is raised in support of waiver of pre-deposit.
In response, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submitted that the sale proceedings had been held after following necessary mandatory procedures. Petitioner has not produced before DRT-III, Chennai any documents to show that the secured asset was under-valued. There are four buildings in the secured asset. There is only one way to reach the property from the national highway. Thus, the secured asset is indivisible in nature and there is no way it could be divided and sold. Therefore, left with no other option, the property was sold in its entirety. Pre-deposit is mandatory for entertaining this appeal.
Mr. M. Muthuppan, Learned Counsel offers to file Vakalat for R2, the auction purchaser.
Post the matter on 18.11.2026 for filing of Vakalat and counter by R2.
Interim order, already granted if any, is extended till next hearing.
Sd/-
Chairperson