Disposed

Hydrose K S v. South Indian Bank

DRAT21 Jan 2026MISC APPEAL/20/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed an application to advance the hearing of an appeal filed against the dismissal of an interim stay petition. It directed the lower DRT to dispose of the main security appeal expeditiously and granted a temporary stay of coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Appeals disposed; Main Security Appeal directed to be disposed expeditiously; Particular coercive action stopped for 10 days pending proposal.

Hydrose K S versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 21^st of January, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

IA 56/2026 and M.A.(S.A):20/2025

¶5

(IA 2692/2024 in SA No.528/2024 before DRT-I, Ernakulam)

¶6

IA 56/2026

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

The Authorized Officer The South Indian Bank Limited Regional Office, Info Park Road, Rajagiri Valley, Kakkanad, Ernakulam – 682039.

¶9

….Petitioner/Appellant

¶10

AND

¶11

Hydrose K. S. Kummattu Puthenpurayil Pattimattom P. O., Ernakulam – 683562

¶12

Subaida Hydrose Kummattu Puthenpurayil Pattimattom P. O., Ernakulam – 683562

….Respondents

M.A.(S.A):20/2025

BETWEEN

Hydrose K. S. Kummattu Puthenpurayil Pattimattom P. O., Ernakulam – 683562

¶17

¶18

Subaida Hydrose Kummattu Puthenpurayil Pattimattom P. O., Ernakulam – 683562

¶19

….Appellants

¶20

AND

¶21

The Authorized Officer The South Indian Bank Limited Regional Office, Info Park Road, Rajagiri Valley, Kakkanad, Ernakulam – 682039 ….Respondent Counsel for Appellants : M/s. M.V.V.N. Sivanthy Counsel for Bank : M/s. V. Rajeswari

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Application is filed for advancing the hearing in MA (SA) 20/2025 from 11.02.2026 to any early date.

¶24

It is the submission of Learned Counsel for

¶25

Petitioner/Respondent Bank that MA (SA) 20/2025 is filed against the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ernakulam in IA 2692/2024, a Stay Petition, in SA 528/2024.

¶26

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ernakulam, after considering the submissions, dismissed the Stay Petition, and therefore,

¶27

this Appeal is filed by the Respondents/Appellants.

¶28

¶29

It is further submitted that impugned SA filed challenging the order passed by Learned CJM, Ernakulam is still pending. She further submitted that Respondents/Appellants availed Cash Credit limit of Rs.150 Lakhs and Term Loan of Rs.30 Lakhs during the year 2019 and 2020. Loan account became NPA on 05.04.2023 followed by issuance of Demand Notice dated 06.05.2023. Symbolic possession was taken on 21.07.2023. An Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed before Learned CJM, Ernakulam, on 12.09.2023 and that was allowed on 03.04.2024. Despite availing huge loan, Respondents/Appellants have not paid any amount towards loan due. Therefore, she prays that this Appeal may be disposed of directing Learned Presiding Officer to dispose of the main SA.

¶30

Learned Counsel for Respondents/Appellants opposed the advance hearing Application.

¶31

In the light of the circumstances stated above and that

¶32

this Appeal is filed only against the dismissal of an Interim Application, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no need

¶33

¶34

to keep this Appeal pending, especially, when SA 528/2024 is still pending. Therefore, this Advance hearing Application in IA 56/2026 is allowed and the Appeal M.A.(S.A):20/2025 is taken up for hearing.

¶35

Heard Learned Counsel for Appellants and Respondent.

¶36

This Appeal is filed against the order passed in IA 2692/2024 in SA 528/2024 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRTI, Ernakulam.

¶37

The main SA 528/2024 was filed to declare 13(2) Demand Notice dated 06.05.2023 as illegal and liable to be set aside, to set aside the order passed by Learned CJM, Ernakulam under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, followed by Possession Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. The main SA is still pending. Since this Appeal is filed against an Interim Order, this Tribunal is of the view that this Appeal can be disposed of by giving direction to Learned Presiding Officer, to dispose of the SA as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ernakulam, is directed to

¶38

¶39

dispose of the SA 528/2024, on merits and in accordance with

¶40

law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

In view of above, the Appeal in M.A.(S.A):20/2025 is disposed of. Both the parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶42

If Appellants come forward with a proposal to pay a reasonable amount to the Bank within 10 days from today, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ernakulam is requested to consider granting stay of the proceedings. The Respondent Bank is directed not to take any coercive action for 10 days

¶43

from today.

¶44

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 21^st of January, 2026]

¶45

Hydrose K S v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hydrose K S 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

R Sethumadhavan versus State Bank of India

Fullerton India Credit Company Limited versus Ms Devi Sea Foods

S Vanaja Rani versus State Bank of India

K a Gopinath versus the Manager the Calicut Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

K a Gopinath versus the Calicut Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

R Anandhi Wife of Rajendran versus M S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.