Disposed

Arasu Filling Station v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRAT20 Jul 2026MISC APPEAL/15/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged an order rejecting a stay on an asset auction sale. The Tribunal held that the merits of the SARFAESI applications and compliance with statutory requirements are for the DRT to decide. The DRT was directed to decide the underlying application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai to decide SA No.385/2025 on merits as expeditiously as possible.

Arasu Filling Station versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

MA(SA) 15/2026

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 20^th day of July, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

MA(SA)15/2026

¶6

(arising out of SA No.385/2025 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s Arasu Filling Station Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Ezhilarasan, K, 27/1 NH 45, Trichy –Chennai Highway, Eraiyur, Veppanthattai, Perambalur District 621 133.

¶9

.... Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Eraiyur Branch, Jawaharlal Nehru Sugar Factory Complex, Eraiyur, Perambalur District.

¶12

.... Respondent Bank

¶13

Counsel for Appellant : M/s K. M. Vijayan Associates Counsel for Respondent Bank : None

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the

¶16

order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai dated 20.6.2025

¶17

passed in SA No.385/2025.

¶18

¶19

MA(SA) 15/2026

¶20

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in SA No.385/2025 on 20.6.2025, rejecting the interim prayer sought for stopping the sale scheduled to be held on 20.6.2025 in pursuance of the sale notice dated 15.5.2025.

¶21

By the said order, learned Presiding Officer recorded the submissions of learned counsel appearing for parties and found that there are bidders for Item No.1 property of the schedule and since appellant failed to avail the benefit under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act for redeeming the property, the Tribunal need not interfere with the scheduled sale. Against this order, this appeal is filed.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that only one property was sold and the remaining properties were not sold. Appellant has made payments towards the loan due except for the concluded sale property.

¶23

There is no representation for the respondent bank, despite service of notice.

¶24

Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

¶25

SA No.385/2025 has been filed to set aside the auction sale notice

¶26

dated 15.5.2025, scheduling the sale on 20.6.2025. Raising several

¶27

¶28

MA(SA) 15/2026

¶29

grounds, more specifically, the following grounds in the grounds of

¶30

Appeal.

¶31

a) bank had not followed RBI guidelines, while initiating measures under

¶32

the SARFAESI Act

¶33

b) Sale of the property without issuing proper possession notice under Section 13(4) is illegal

¶34

c) Authorised Officer has grossly undervalued the property and fixed the reserve price low and thus violated Rule 8(5) of SIE Rules, 2002.

¶35

d) There is violation of Rule 9 read with Rule 8(6) of SIE Rules in not properly effecting paper publication in widely circulated newspapers

¶36

e) No clear 30 days notice was given

¶37

f) Loan amount claimed in the sale notice is not correct and

¶38

g) respondent bank had not considered the representation made by the appellant for a settlement.

¶39

The aforesaid grounds have to be decided by the learned Presiding Officer in the pending SARFAESI Application. This appeal is filed only against an order passed in the pending SARFAESI Application, rejecting

¶40

the prayer of the appellant for stopping the sale on the ground that there are bidders and therefore, no stay can be granted. Whether sale

¶41

of one of the properties has been done by complying with the

¶42

¶43

MA(SA) 15/2026

¶44

mandatory requirements under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made

¶45

thereunder and whether grounds raised by the appellant are true, are

¶46

to be decided only by the Learned Presiding Officer as first adjudicatory

¶47

authority under the SARFAESI Act.

¶48

Therefore, this appeal can be disposed of, by directing the Learned Presiding Officer to decide the SARFAESI Application on merits, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

¶49

10.Accordingly, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai is directed to decide SA No.385/2025 on merits, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

¶50

In the result , Appeal MA(SA) 15/2026 is disposed of, as indicated above.

¶51

12.Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶52

13.Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶53

[Dictated to PS (SN) transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 20^th July, 2026)

¶54

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶55

Arasu Filling Station v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arasu Filling Station v. Indian Overseas 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

B Srinivasan & Anr. versus Bank of Baroda

K.Dasarah versus Axis Bank

Axis Bank versus M/s Manam Agri Impex & Ors.

T Rajendran versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

M S Dd Agency versus Canara Bank

R P K Jeyakumar versus Axis Bank

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

B Srinivasan & Anr. versus Bank of Baroda

K.Dasarah versus Axis Bank

Axis Bank versus M/s Manam Agri Impex &amp; Ors.

T Rajendran versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

M S Dd Agency versus Canara Bank

R P K Jeyakumar versus Axis Bank

Axis Bank versus M/s Manam Agri Impex & Ors.