Madras High Court
M/S.Om Muruga Traders vs The Authorised Officer on 20 April, 2022
C.R.P(MD)No.908 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.908 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3616 of 2022
M/s.Om Muruga Traders,
A Partnership Rep. by its Partners,
i.K.M.Kannan
ii.K.Padrakali ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Applicant
.vs.
1.The Authorised Officer,
Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.,
Asset Recovery Branch,
R.S.No.170/9, Uthankudi Village,
Near Mattuthavani Bus Stand,
Madurai – 625 107.
2.The Branch Manager,
Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.,
Sivakasi Branch,
South Car Street, Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the
order dated 18.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.1315 of 2021 in S.A.No.346 of 2021 on
the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Madurai.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.908 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran
ORDER
*******
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The challenge in this revision is to interim order passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, dated 18.02.2022 made in I.A.No.1315 of 2021 in
S.A.No.346 of 2021.
2. The challenge in the Sarfaesi Application was to the possession notice
issued by the bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Madurai, while granting stay of the auction, directed the petitioner to pay
a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in two equal instalments. The first instalment of
Rs.5,00,000/- was directed to be paid on or before 18.03.2022 and the second
instalment was directed to be paid on or before 15.04.2022. It is not in dispute
that the petitioner has paid the first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.03.2022
within the time stipulated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.908 of 2022
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, is onerous and the Tribunal
had not taken note of the fact that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on
04.09.2021 which is before the issuance of the possession notice.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. The order granting stay is a discretionery order and we do not think that
we could interfere with the same exercising our jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. Admittely, the petitioner owes a sum of
Rs.26,98,869.87/- to the bank. Therefore, we do not think that the condition
imposed directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,00,000/- in two instalments could be
termed as onerous. While we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, we find some justification in the request of the learned counsel
for the petitioner for extension of time for payment of the remaining amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- .
6. Considering the nature of the business of the petitioner and the fact that
the entrepreneurs are very badly affected by the pandemic and the lock down, we
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.908 of 2022
extend the time for payment of the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- till
15.06.2022. The bank shall not proceed with the auction till 15.06.2022.
This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observation.
No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[R.S.M.,J.] [N.S.K.,J.]
20.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
pm
To:
1.The Judge,
Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.908 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
pm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.R.P(MD)No.908 of 2022
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
