Madras High Court
M.S.Suburaman vs The Registrar on 14 August, 2023
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
M.S.Suburaman, S/o.Sundarapandi
Proprietor, Hotel Sri Saravana Bhavan
S.F.No.153/4A2, NH 47 Main Road
Moongilpalayam, Vijayamangalam
Erode – 638 056 .. Petitioner in
both W.Ps.
Vs.
1. The Registrar
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Indian Bank Circle Officer, 4th Floor
55, Ethiraj Salai
Chennai 600 008.
2. The Authorised Officer
M/s. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Perumanallur Branch
Opp. to State Bank of India
Perumallur 641 666.
3. Prabakaran
Respondents in
4. P.Arulselvam .. both W.Ps.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to place
the appeal filed by the petitioner in R.A.(S.A) Diary Nos.43/2023 and
42/2023 respectively before the presiding member of the learned
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, challenging the
order in S.A.Nos.572 of 2002 and 668 of 2021 (DRT, Coimbatore)
respectively dated 05.01.2023 and consequently, direct the
respondents 2 to 4 to maintain status quo and not to take any
coercive steps with respect to the property in New S.F.No.153/4A2,
Vijayamangalam Bye-Pass Road, Moongilpalayam village, Perundurai
Taluk, Erode District comprising an extent of 32.75 cents with Hotel
building constructed thereupon, until the disposal of the appeal filed
by the petitioner before the first respondent.
For the Petitioner : Mrs.Chitra Sampath
Senior Counsel
For Mr.J.Hariharan
For M/s. L.V.Law Firm
For the Respondents : Mr.S.Sethuraman
for Respondent-2
No appearance -
for Respondents 3 & 4
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.J.Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel for the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
2. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking directions
against the respondents 2 to 4 to maintain status quo and that the
appeal bearing R.A.(S.A) Diary Nos.43/2023 and 42/2023 be taken
up by the Appellate Tribunal.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that
initially when the application under Section 17 was filed challenging
the possession and sale notice, the petitioner deposited Rs.36.00 lakh
being 50% of the amount due and payable. During the pendency of
the said application, sale took place. The petitioner filed another S.A.
challenging the sale.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that against the
judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissing the application
of the petitioner, the petitioner filed S.A. before the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal. The said application has not been taken up. As
such, the present writ petitions are filed.
5. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
petitioner that the petitioner, pursuant to the orders of this Court
dated 03.03.2023, deposited Rs.36.00 lakh on or about 06.03.2023.
Thus, 100% amount is deposited by the petitioner.
6. According to learned counsel for the respondent bank, the
sale is challenged and the property is sold for more than Rs.1.76
crore. The petitioner will have to deposit 50% of the said amount.
7. The matters are pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal. It is for the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate
the amount. It appears that the petitioner has deposited Rs.72.00
lakh in the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The sale is at Rs.1.76
crore. Even if the case of the respondent bank is accepted, the
petitioner has deposited 50% of the sale consideration. That would be
the sufficient deposit for the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal to
hear the appeals.
8. We are not entering into the debate as to whether the
petitioner has deposited 100% or not, as the same would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
considered by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner
has, till now, deposited Rs.72 lakh in the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall register the
appeal, if it otherwise complies with all other legal requirements.
9. In case the petitioner demonstrates that Rs.72.00 lakh has
been deposited, then, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall
consider the same to be the sufficient amount for pre-deposit and if
the appeal is otherwise in order and complies with other
requirements, shall register it and hear it on its own merits.
10. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.
The order of status quo to continue till the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal hears the application for stay on its own merits. There will be
no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.6974 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
14.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
kpl
To
1. The Registrar
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Indian Bank Circle Officer, 4th Floor
55, Ethiraj Salai
Chennai 600 008.
2. The Authorised Officer
M/s. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Perumanallur Branch
Opp. to State Bank of India
Perumallur 641 666.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(kpl)
W.P.Nos.6877 & 6885 of 2023
14.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
