Disposed

Rajesh Ek v. South Indian Bank

DRAT20 Nov 2025MISC APPEAL/27/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal against the dismissal of a stay application. It directed the lower tribunal to expeditiously decide the main appeal to set aside attachment proceedings and granted a one-month interim stay on possession.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the main appeal expeditiously and granted an interim stay against taking possession of the property for one month.

Rajesh Ek versus South Indian Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 20^th day of November 2025

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA (SA) 27/2025

¶6

(Arising out of IA 2308/2023 in SA.No. 357 of 2023 on the file of DRT-II, Ernakulam)

¶7

Between

¶8

Rajesh E.K., Rep. by PoA Holder Jayesh E.K., Eluvangal House, Elinjipra P.O., Kodassery, Thrissur 680 721.

¶9

Kunjaman E.V., Eluvangal House, Elinjipra P.O., Kodassery, Thrissur 680 721.

¶10

Leela Kunjaman, Eluvangal House, Elinjipra P.O., Kodassery, Thrissur 680 721. … Appellants

¶11

And

¶12

South Indian Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Chalakudy Main Branch, No.XX/968 B, Theethayees Martin Corner, KSRTC Bus Stand Road, Chalakudy, Thirussur 680 307.

¶13

The Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd., Christ Nagar, AKP Junction, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur 680 125. … Respondents

¶14

¶15

Counsel for Appellants : M/s H. Hamza Rawther Associates Counsel for Respondents : M/s Ananda Gomathy Murugesan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This appeal is filed against the order passed in IA 2308/2023 to stay all further proceedings in SA 357/2023 before the DRT-II, Ernakulam. Learned Presiding Officer finding that the application was devoid of merits, dismissed the application. That order is challenged in this appeal.

¶18

After filing the appeal, the petitioners approached the

¶19

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP (DRT) No. 263/2025 seeking direction to take up and pass orders in explicitly in the stay application within a time frame fixed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and for other reliefs. The Hon’ble High Court passed an order on 16.09.2025 taking notice of the fact that the appeal had been filed after remitting 25% of the due, directed the Tribunal to consider the stay application within one month from the date of the application for early hearing. There was also a direction to the petitioners to file the early hearing petition within a week from the date of the order and the Tribunal was directed to dispose the stay application within three weeks from the date of filing of the application.

¶20

¶21

It appears that the advance hearing application is filed only on 14.10.2025 i.e. beyond one week time given for filing the advance hearing application. Today is the original date of hearing.

¶22

It is seen from the records and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that SA 357/2023 is filed to set aside the demand notice, possession notice, proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. The said SA is still pending. The appeal in question is filed only against the interim order.

¶23

Thus, this Tribunal is of the view that this appeal could

¶24

be disposed giving direction to the learned Presiding Officer to dispose the SA 357/2023 as expeditiously as possible, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶25

In this view of the matter, this appeal is disposed

¶26

directing the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Ernakulam, to dispose the SA 357/2023 as expeditiously as possible, on merits and in accordance with law. There shall be an order of interim stay against

¶27

¶28

taking possession of the property for a period of one month from today. Thereafter, it is for the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Ernakulam to consider the continuance or discontinuance of the Stay depending upon the need and exigency.

¶29

In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the above direction. Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶30

Pending IAs, if any shall stand closed.

¶31

Sd/(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶32

Rajesh Ek v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Ek v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Mahan Textile Process India (P) Ltd. versus The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation (Tiic) Ltd.

Mrs Dulsierani Lionel versus Smfg India Credit Co. Ltd.

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (Tiic) Ltd. versus mahan textile process india Pvt. Ltd.

Govindasamy Balasubramaniam versus Indian Overseas Bank

Govindasamy Balasubramaniam versus Indian Overseas Bank

Msn Eps Panels rep by its managing partner Mr Madhusudhan Mrs Mayuri and Ms Harshini versus Punjab National Bank