Disposed

G R Gopikrishnan v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRAT13 Oct 2025MISC APPEAL/55/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal by directing the Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Chennai, to dispose of the pending main special appeal (SA 217/2025) expeditiously, rather than deciding the merits of the stay order on proposed sale.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai to dispose special appeal No. 217/2025 expeditiously.

G R Gopikrishnan versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 13^th day of October 2025

¶3

PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA (SA) 55/2025

¶6

(Arising out of IA 595/2025 in S.A.No.217/2025

¶7

On the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

¶8

Between

¶9

Mr. G.R. Gopikrishnan, S/o Mr. G. Radhakrishnan, No.191 Sydenhams Road, Choolai, Chennai 600 112. … Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

The Authorised Officer, M/s. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Chennai Aminjikarai Branch, D.No. 650 Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. …Respondent

¶12

Counsel for Appellant : M/s. J. Prince Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A. Karthikeyan

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This appeal is filed challenging the order DATED

¶16

28/03/2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, in IA 595/2025 in SA 217/2015.

¶17

The learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, by the order dated 28.03.2025 in IA 595/2025 in SA 217/2025 stayed the proposed sale subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount due, as on date of passing the order on or before 02/04/2025 and equal sum within one month thereafter. If any of the conditions has not been complied, Bank was at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Against the said order, this appeal is filed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submitted that in view of non-compliance of the conditional order, sale was held, sale certificate was issued and possession is yet to be handed over. Challenging the sale and issuance of sale certificate, SA Dy. No.1292/2025 filed and the same is still pending.

¶19

The main SA in SA No. 217/2025 has been filed challenging the sale notice of the property dated 26/02/2025 by fixing the sale on 03/04/2025. The said SA is still pending. Therefore, this Tribunal is

¶20

¶21

of the view that this appeal can be disposed by giving a direction to the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, to dispose SA 217/2025 as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

Thus, this appeal is disposed directing the learned Presiding

¶23

Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, to dispose SA 217/ 217/2025 as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

In the result, this appeal is disposed of .

¶25

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, to dispose SA 217/

¶26

217/2025 as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶28

Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

Dictated in open Court to steno(RA), transcribed by her, corrected, and signed by me, this 13^th day of October 2025)

¶30

Sd/(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶31

G R Gopikrishnan v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G R Gopikrishnan v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neroth Marakkar versus Punjab National Bank

K Bhaskaran versus State Bank of India

Neroth Marakkar versus Punjab National Bank

Mr Mn Ashok versus Dhfl Vysya Housing Finance

Bank of India versus Noorul Ilam Trust

M S Rahman Leather Exports versus Punjab National Bank