Allowed

K Saravanan v. South Indian Bank

DRAT22 Oct 2025TRANSFER PETITION/6/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal transferred two recovery appeals from DRT-III to DRT-II, Chennai, due to allegations of bias and a strained professional relationship between the applicants' counsel and the Presiding Officer, despite the latter's denial of prejudice and assertion of fair conduct.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of SA 632/2024 and SA 524/2023 to DRT-II, Chennai within one week; expedited disposal directed.

K Saravanan versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

TP No.6/2025 & TP No.11/2025

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 22^nd day of October, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

T.P.No.6/2025

T.P.No.11/2025

(Arising out of SA 632/2024 and SA No.524/2023 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

¶9

I. T.P.No.6/2025

¶10

Between

¶11

1. Mr. K. Saravanan, S/o Kanniappan Mudaliar, Proprietor, M/s Sarvana Enterprises, 73B/9, Pallikoduthan Street, Kancheepuram 631 502

¶12

Kancheepuram 631 501.

¶13

4. Mrs. Senthamarai Ammal, W/o Late N. Kanniyappan, Door No.73A & 73/A2, Mettu Street, Kancheepuram 631 501

¶14

Also at:

¶15

5. Mr. K. Panneerselvam (Deceased)

¶16

Mr. K. Saravanan, S/o (Deceased) Kanniappan Mudaliar, Door No.73A & 73/A2, Mettu 6. Mrs. Rajeswari, Street, W/o D. Vijayakumar, Kancheepuram 631 501. 18/43, Neminthakara Othavadai Street,

¶17

Mr. K. Murugadoss, Kancheepuram, S/o Kanniappan Mudaliar, Big Kancheepuram, Door No.73A & 73/A2, Tamil Nadu 631 502.

¶18

2. Mr. K. Murugadoss, S/o Kanniappan Mudaliar, Door No.73A & 73/A2, Mettu Street, Kancheepuram 631 501

¶19

7. Mrs. Kamatchi, W/o Boopathy, N.41A/1, Vallal Pachaiyappan Street, VTC, Kancheepuram 631 501.

¶20

3. Mr. N. Kanniappan, S/o Namasivaya Mudaliar (Deceased) Door No.73A & 73/A2, Mettu Street,

…..Appellants

And

TP No.6/2025 &

TP No.11/2025

1. The South Indian Bank Ltd. Represented by its 2. Mr. Devadoss Neelamegam, Authorised Signatory, S/o Neelamegam, Regional Office at No.60A/348, Bharathidasan No.43, Ground Floor, Street, Hameedia Centre, Haddows Mamallan Nagar, Road, Kancheepuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai Tamil Nadu 631 501. 600 006.

¶27

…..Respondents

¶28

Counsel for the Appellants : M/s G. Desingu & Co. Counsel for the 1^st Respondent bank : M/s Ramalingam & Associates Counsel for 2^nd respondent : None

¶29

II. T.P.No.11/2025

¶30

1. Mr. K. Saravanan, S/o 4 Mrs. Senthamarai Ammal, Kanniappan Mudaliar, W/o Late N. Kanniyappan, Proprietor, M/s Sarvana Door No.73A & 73/A2, Enterprises, Mettu Street, 73B/9, Pallikoduthan Street, Kancheepuram 631 501 Kancheepuram 631 502

¶31

5 Mr. K. Panneerselvam Also at: (Deceased), S/o Late N. Kanniyappan, Mr. K. Saravanan, S/o No.73A/1, Pallikoodathan Kanniappan Mudaliar, street, Door No.73A & 73/A2, Kanchipuram 631 502. Mettu Street, Kancheepuram 631 501. 6 Mrs. Rajeswari,

¶32

Kancheepuram 631 501. 6 Mrs. Rajeswari, W/o D. Vijayakumar,

¶33

2 Mr. K. Murugadoss, 18/43, Neminthakara S/o Kanniappan Mudaliar, Othavadai Street, Door No.73A & 73/A2, Kancheepuram, Mettu Street, Big Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram 631 501 Tamil Nadu 631 502.

¶34

3 Mr. N. Kanniappan, 7 Mrs. Kamatchi, W/o S/o Namasivaya Mudaliar Boopathy, (Deceased) N.41A/1, Vallal Pachaiyappan Door No.73A & 73/A2, Street, VTC, Mettu Street, Kancheepuram 631 501. Kancheepuram 631 501.

¶35

…..Appellants

¶36

¶37

TP No.6/2025 & TP No.11/2025

¶38

And The South Indian Bank Ltd. Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Regional Office at No.43, Ground Floor, Hameedia Centre, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006. …Respondent Bank Counsel for the appellants : M/s G. Desingu & Co. Counsel for the Respondent bank : M/s Ramalingam & Associates

¶39

…Respondent Bank

¶40

COMMON ORDER

¶41

These Transfer Petitions viz. T.P.No.6/2025 and T.P.No.11/2025 are filed under Section 17A(2) of RDB Act, seeking transfer of SA No.632/2024 and SA No.524/2023 from DRT-III, Chennai to DRT-II, Chennai.

¶42

Common averments made in these transfer applications are that SA 632/2024 was filed challenging E-Auction Sale held on 14.3.2024 pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 19.2.2024. SA No.524/2023 was filed challenging the order of Learned CJM, Chengalpat dated 2.9.2023 passed in CMP No.10614/2022.

¶43

SA 632/2024 was posted on 4.3.2025 for filing counter. At request of Learned Counsel for respondent bank the case was adjourned to 25.3.2025 to file counter before Registrar. On 25.3.2025, it was informed that counter was filed on 13.3.2025 before the Registry. Then, the case was posted to

¶44

21.4.2025 before the Learned Presiding Officer. From 21.4.2025, the case was

TP No.6/2025 &

TP No.11/2025

reposted to 14.8.2025. First respondent bank filed an application to advance

¶49

the hearing and insisted to conduct the hearing on the same date. On pointing out that the application was filed only to advance the hearing on 14.8.2025 to an early date, Learned Presiding Officer posted the case on 20.6.2025. Learned Counsel for transfer applicants informed the Tribunal that petition has been filed for furnishing certain particulars from the first respondent bank and negotiations are going on with the auction purchaser and that the matter is likely to be settled; there is also no urgency in this case, since already sale was over, sale certificate was issued and that no interim order is in force against the first respondent bank. Learned Presiding Officer gave deaf ear to the representation of the Learned Counsel for the applicants. Facial expression clearly revealed her scant respect for the representation of the Learned Counsel for the applicants and it appeared that she got personal grudge against the Learned Counsel for the applicants. Applicants have a genuine apprehension that they may not get proper disposal and justice before DRT-III, Chennai if the case is allowed to be pursued there. The manner in which Learned Presiding Officer fixed the date caused great apprehension in the mind of the applicants and the conduct of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai is unfair and inequitable. The prejudice of the Learned Presiding Officer against the Learned Counsel for the applicants stand vindicated by the undue, haste and urgency with which the hearing of the SA has been advanced from 14.8.2025 to 20.6.2025 . Because of the

¶50

¶51

TP No.6/2025 &

¶52

TP No.11/2025 misunderstanding between Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai and the Learned Counsel for the applicants, applicants are running a risk of their SA not been adjudicated in a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, Learned counsel for applicants prayed to transfer SA 632/2024 from DRT-III, Chennai to DRT-II, Chennai.

¶53

In addition to the affidavit averments, it is averred in Transfer Petition No.11/2025 that SA 524/2023 stood posted to 26.8.2025. When SA 632/2024 was taken up for hearing on 20.6.2025, Learned Counsel for first respondent bank made a oral representation to advance the hearing of SA 524/2023 for hearing along with SA 632/2024 without any application for advancing the hearing of said SA. Based on the oral representation, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai suo moto advanced the hearing of SA 534/2023 from 26.8.2025 to 15.7.2025, which is unfair and inequitable. Present counsel is appearing on behalf of the applicants for over 10 years, looking after their various cases. If this case is heard by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, they will not get a fair order. Therefore, Learned Counsel for applicants prayed for transfer of SA 524/2023 from DRT-III, Chennai to DRT-II, Chennai.

¶54

Learned Counsel for applicants submitted that applicants are long standing clients. As President of DRT & DRAT Association, certain resolutions have been passed with regard to administrative issues in the matter of numbering

TP No.6/2025 &

TP No.11/2025

of applications filed before DRT-II and DRT-III, Chennai; return of cases filed by the respective Tribunal on the point of lack of jurisdiction; regular hearing of emergent matters before DRT-III; uploading of interim orders along with proceedings for SAs, OAs and IAs, etc.

¶59

Learned Counsel for applicants along with office bearers of the DRT & DRAT Bar Association met Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in her chamber on 14.5.2025 and expressed their grievances. There was exchange of views on either side. Aggrieved against the resolutions passed, Learned Presiding Officer is prejudiced against the Learned Counsel for the applicants and taking advantage of the advance hearing application filed in SA 632/2024, pressed for the hearing on SA 524/2023 without giving sufficient time for the applicants. When several other cases filed prior to this case are still pending, interest shown in disposing these two cases show that Learned Presiding Officer is prejudiced against the Learned Counsel for the applicants. Therefore, applicants apprehend that they may not get proper and fair justice from the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, therefore, these transfer applications are filed.

¶60

Learned Counsel for the first respondent bank seriously opposed the transfer applications on the ground that transfer applications are filed only with a view to protract the SA proceedings. Appellants have not taken no steps to settle

¶61

the loan account. SARFAESI measures had been taken following the

¶62

¶63

TP No.6/2025 & TP No.11/2025

¶64

procedures correctly, sale was held, sale certificate was issued. SA No.632/2024 was filed on 13.9.2024. On 25.9.2024, respondents were asked to file counter. Thereafter, it was adjourned to 27.12.2024 and from 27.12.2024 to 4.3.2025 for filing counter and typed set of documents. Counter was filed on 25.3.2025. From 25.3.2025, the case was reposted 24.8.2025. As case was posted after a long date, IA No.1097/2024 was filed for advancing the hearing. It was allowed and the case was advanced to 20.6.2025. On 20.6.2025 it was informed that transfer petition No.6/2025 was filed before DRAT, Chennai. Therefore, it was reposted to 15.7.2025.

¶65

It is further submitted that the claim of the applicants that applicants are negotiating for a settlement with the auction purchaser is not correct. Applicants are trying to create a mountain out of a hill and these transfer petitions are filed only to drag the proceedings. The property was sold in auction. Bank is duty bound to hand over physical possession to the auction purchaser. Applicants are still in possession of the property. Since respondents requested to take up the connected SA No.524/2023 together, these transfer petitions are filed. Learned Counsel for the first respondent bank prayed for dismissal of the transfer petitions.

¶66

Learned Counsel for auction purchaser adopted the submissions of Learned Counsel for first respondent bank and further submitted that auction purchaser invested huge sum in buying the property in auction. If possession

TP No.6/2025 &

TP No.11/2025

is not delivered, he would be seriously prejudiced. The allegations against Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai were only made to protract the proceedings. If the cases are transferred on the basis of theses bald allegations, in every other case, transfer petition will be filed and thus prayed for dismissal of the transfer petitions. In support of his submissions, he pressed into service the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in re Noushad Flourish Vs. Akhila and another.

¶71

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶72

Since some personal allegations are made against the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, this Tribunal called for remarks of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai on the allegations made in both transfer petitions. Remarks dated 8.9.2025 reads that after appearing of parties and filing of counter, SA 632/2024 was posted to 14.8.2025 for arguments. On the application filed by first respondent bank to advance the hearing in IA 1097/2025, the case was taken up on 18.6.2025. On 18.6.2025, Learned Counsel for applicants vehemently opposed to the early hearing, contending that there is no urgency for 2024 matters. On perusal of records, it was found that sale was successfully held and case stood adjourned by notification to

¶73

14.8.2025. As third party claim is already created and sale certificate is registered, case is ripe for hearing on the main case. Hence, matter was ordered to be taken up on 20.6.2025.

¶74

¶75

TP No.6/2025 & TP No.11/2025

¶76

11.1 On 20.6.2025, Learned Counsel for applicants reported that Transfer Petition No.6/2025 was filed before this Tribunal and sought two weeks time for submitting the arguments. Arguments of the first respondent bank and auction purchaser was heard. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for first respondent bank and auction purchaser submitted that applicants challenged the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in SA No.524/2023. However, physical possession is still with the applicants. Both counsel prayed that SA No.524/2023 also to be heard along with SA No.632/2024. On the same day, Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted

¶77

that there was no settlement. On 15.7.2025, it was represented that transfer applications are filed for transfer of SA 632/2024 and SA 524/2023, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 25.9.2025.

¶78

11.2 Averments made in transfer petition No.6/2025 are baseless, unsustainable

¶79

and without any justifiable reasons. Only on the advance hearing application, the case was advanced. Urgency of the case has to be ascertained by the nature of the case. In the instant case, sale was held, sale certificate was issued and third party interest created. The urgency in the matter is made out. Therefore, hearing was advanced from 14.8.2025 to 18.6.2025. Submissions with regard to negotiations with auction purchaser and likely settlement is a false statement. It shows that transfer petitions are filed only with an

TP No.6/2025 &

TP No.11/2025

intention to drag on the matter alleging vindictive behaviour. Proceeding dated 20.6.2025 in SA 632/2025 is extracted. Allegation against the Presiding Officer that “ unfortunately the face expression clearly revealed her scant respect for the representation made by the Learned Counsel and also it appeared that she has got personal grudge against applicants’ counsel” is strongly denied. The applicants’ counsel Mr.G. Desingu is not allowing the undersigned in the discharge of official duty by leveling unwarranted allegations on her integrity. The Tribunal is duty bound to dispose the case within three months, which is judiciously being followed by the Learned Presiding Officer. Mr. G. Desingu, counsel for applicants in both SAs, as President of DRT & DRAT Association expressed his displeasure through the first Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Association held on 5.5.2025 and the second Extraordinary General Body Meeting held on 4.7.2025. It shows that grievances/arguments made in the transfer petitions are nothing but interference of Learned Counsel for applicants, who incidentally being the President of Bar Association, coming in the way of administration of the Tribunal and in adjudication of the cases, which is highly deplorable.

¶84

11.3 DRT & DRAT Bar Association consists of 800 members who do not have any

¶85

grievance in respect of proceedings or the way the court is being conducted by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai. There is no reason for raising allegation of vindictiveness of the Presiding Officer. Incident that had

¶86

¶87

TP No.6/2025 & TP No.11/2025

¶88

happened on 14.5.2025 in the chamber of Learned Presiding Officer was brought to the notice of Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai. Executive members, who were part of the incident on 14.5.2025 are conducting the cases without allegation of prejudice or vindictiveness. On the other hand, Mr. G. Desingu has taken it personally for himself for reasons best known to him and levelled unethical allegations to tarnish the integrity and reputation of the Presiding Officer.

¶89

In the remarks dated 8.9.2025 filed in T.P.No.11/2025, it is stated that SA 524/2023 was filed in 2023, challenging the measures initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Arguments of both sides were heard on 12.2.2024. However, applicants took time for reporting settlement. But settlement was not reported. There was no representation for both sides on 4.3.2025. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 4.6.2025. On 4.6.2025, counsel for applicants, Mr.G. Desingu submitted that applicants challenged the sale notice in SA 632/2024 and the matter be taken up together. As matter pertains to the year 2023, Tribunal felt that it is not proper to give any further adjournment. Submissions that matter is under negotiations was opposed by the first respondent bank. Proceedings of SA 524/2023 dated 4.6.2025 is extracted.

TP No.6/2025 &

TP No.11/2025

12.1 At request of Learned Counsel for applicants, the case was adjourned to

¶94

9.6.2025 for arguments finally. On 9.6.2025, the case was adjourned to 26.8.2025 by notification. On the same day, SA 632/2024 came up for hearing. Learned Counsel for first respondent bank and auction purchaser prayed that SA 524/2023 to be heard along with SA 632/2024. It is represented by the Learned Counsel for the applicants that there was no settlement. For effective adjudication, SA 524/2023 was directed to be listed on 15.7.2025 along with SA 632/2024. That was not objected by Learned Counsel for the applicants. On 15.7.2025, it was represented that applicants filed transfer petition before DRAT, Chennai. Therefore, the matter was posted to 25.9.2025. Allegations made in these Transfer petitions are denied. Then, there is reference about Executive General Body Meeting II. Except the Learned Counsel for the applicants other executive members have not made any allegation of prejudice or vindictiveness, etc.

¶95

Unpleasant and unwarranted incident that had happened in the Chamber of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai on 14.5.2025, when brought to the notice of Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai, Chairperson called for a meeting with President and Office bearers of DRT & DRAT Bar Association and condemned the conduct of certain office bearers including the Learned Counsel for applicants in no uncertain terms and their conduct cannot be appreciated and accepted. The events that had taken place prior to the incident on 14.5.2025

¶96

¶97

TP No.6/2025 & TP No.11/2025

¶98

were, two Extraordinary General Body Meetings of DRT & DRAT Bar Association held on 5.5.2025 and 4.7.2025 and resolutions passed thereon. Those resolutions are also communicated to the Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai.

¶99

In the resolution dated 5.5.2025, following points are highlighted.

¶100

a) It would cause irreparable loss to the rights of the litigants, if securitization applications pertaining to i) Possession (ii) Section 14 and (iii) sale are listed only on Tuesday, as litigants approach the DRT for relief only as a last resort.

¶101

b) In the Extraordinary General Body Meeting, it has been unanimously resolved to request the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai to take urgent matters on a daily basis and as and when required, in the Court or in the Chambers or through E-DRT and thus render justice to the litigants.

¶102

c) It was resolved to request the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai to upload the terms of interim orders along with proceedings in SA, OA and IA in the daily order, as litigants are unable to verify the order until the certified copy of the interim order is made ready/obtained. It is causing difficulty to the litigants to verify the same before taking possession or conducting the auction or from further proceeding thereof.

¶103

d) It was resolved to request the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai to follow the earlier procedure for translation by not insisting for complete translation of entire sale deed and other vernacular documents and to permit the litigants/advocates to file only the gist of translation for vernacular documents in both OA and SAs.

¶104

¶105

TP No.6/2025 & TP No.11/2025

¶106

As per the Resolution dated 4.7.2025, following grievances were highlighted.

¶107

a) DRT-II and DRT-III, Chennai are not accepting filing of OAs and SAs as per the provisions enshrined under the RDB Act and SARFAESI Act. In cases where, one of the defendants is outside the jurisdiction of a particular DRT, both DRT-II and DRT-III Chennai are returning the case files stating that all the defendants shall come under jurisdiction of the same DRT. This is inconsistent with Section 19(1) of RDB Act and Section 17 (1A) of SARFAESI Act.

¶108

b) Under no circumstances, urgent mentioning is permitted in DRT-II and DRT-III, Chennai.

¶109

c) Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai is not considering, disposing or passing orders in stay application in SA pertaining to sale notice.

¶110

d) Hon’ble Presiding officer, DRT-III, Chennai is conducting the court in a hurried manner to complete the court proceedings within fifteen minutes.

¶111

When these resolutions are brought to the notice of Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai, Chairperson held a meeting with Learned Presiding Officers of DRT-II, and DRT-III, Chennai and advised them to act in accordance with the provisions of RDB Act and SARFAESI Act on the point of Jurisdiction and on other issues. Office bearers of the DRT & DRAT Bar Association were also informed that Presiding Officers are expected to act within the framework of RDB Act and SARFAESI Act and that BAR cannot compel or insist or press any orders or accommodate parties/counsel beyond the provisions of aforesaid

¶112

¶113

TP No.6/2025 &

¶114

TP No.11/2025 Acts. Learned Presiding Officers were advised to hold sitting both in the forenoon and afternoon by posting sufficient cases to keep them occupied during 10.30 AM – 01.00 PM and 02.00 PM to 05.00 PM. They were also directed to take up the urgent matters on daily basis.

¶115

Be that as it may. From the facts narrated above, it is quite clear that DRT & DRAT Bar Association has expressed certain grievances in functioning of DRT-II and DRT-III, Chennai especially in entertaining cases on the point of jurisdiction, not allowing emergent matters on daily basis, closing the hearing within a short time. As President of DRT & DRAT Bar Association, Learned Counsel for applicants had taken up these issues with Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai on 14.5.2025 in her chamber, which ended in unpleasant manner. As already stated, Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai expressed his displeasure and disapproval of the conduct of Learned Counsel for applicants and other office bearers in no uncertain terms. There is no doubt that there is no healthy relationship between Learned Counsel for applicants and Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, in the matter of conduct of cases. Parties, viz. the applicants, because of this strained relationship between the Learned Presiding Officer and the President of DRT & DRAT Bar

¶116

Association, apprehend that their cases will not be disposed in a proper manner.

TP No.6/2025 &

TP No.11/2025

It is a well settled proposition of law that “ justice should not only be done,

¶121

must also be seen to be done ”. Without approving the allegations made against Learned Presiding Officer like personal prejudice, vindictiveness, etc., this Tribunal, in order to ensure smooth conduct of SA No.632/2024 and SA No.534/2023 and to avoid any further unpleasant situation, is of the view that aforesaid SAs are to be transferred to DRT-II, Chennai from DRT-III, Chennai. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai is directed to transfer these cases to DRT-II, Chennai within a period of one week from the date receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of records, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai is directed to dispose of both SARFAESI Applications viz. SA 632/2024 and SA 534/2023, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months.

¶122

In the result T.P.No.6/2025 and T.P. No.11/2025 are disposed of, as indicated above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶123

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶124

[Dictated to Grade I Stenographer SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 22^nd October, 2025)

¶125

Sd/-

¶126

(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶127

K Saravanan v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Saravanan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

UmaKumar Hospital versus Central Bank of India

Umakumar Hospital versus Central Bank of India

E Kumar versus a O Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Muruga Traders versus State Bank of India

Saravana Enterprises versus South Indian Bank

shri shanmuga stores versus Canara Bank