Dismissed

Ms Bajaj Finance Limited v. Jeya Cashew Industries

DRAT7 Aug 2026MISC APPEAL/4/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by a financial institution against an order restoring a securitization application for prosecution. The Tribunal held that the lower court acted correctly in providing an opportunity to prosecute the original application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Partition No. 4/2026/AR is dismissed; appellate order dated 25.11.2025 in MA 4/2025 is confirmed.

Ms Bajaj Finance Limited versus Jeya Cashew Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 7^th day of August, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

MA (SA) 4/2026

¶5

(Arising out of MA 431/2025 in S.A.No. 136/2025 on the file of DRT, Madurai)

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited, Nagercoil Branch, No.85, 1^st floor, Sidel Towers, WCC Road, Nagercoil & Post, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Mr.B. Vignesh … Appellant

¶8

And

¶9

Jeya Cashew Industries, Rep. by JeyaBalies K, W/o Late SundaraBalies, No.5-90, Manjanavilai, Maruthurkurichi, Kattathurai P.O., Kalkulam T.K., Kanyakumari Dist. 629 158. 2. Smilin S., S/o Late Sundara Balies, No.5-90, Manjanavilai, Maruthurkurichi, Kattathurai P.O., Kalkulam T.K., Kanyakumari Dist. 629 158. …Respondent

¶10

Counsel for Appellant : M/s. M. Arunachalam Counsel for Respondents : M/s. P. Murugan

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This appeal is filed against the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, allowing the MA 431/2025 in SA 136/2025 filed for restoring the securitization application, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.10.2025.

¶14

Thereafter, the applicants/respondents herein filed MA 431/2025 for restoration of the securitization application along with the application for advance hearing on 22.08.2025. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, on allowing the advance hearing application from 08.01.2026, passed an order in MA 431/2025 on 25.11.2025. By the said order, the learned Presiding Officer, on considering the submissions made on either side, allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to the learned counsel for the respondents. As stated already, against this order, this appeal is filed.

¶15

Learned junior counsel representing the learned counsel on record for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter. Since, the issue involved in this appeal is very simple,

¶16

¶17

this Tribunal is not inclined to grant any adjournment and thus proceeded to dispose the appeal.

¶18

Securitization application has been filed to quash and set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, in CMP No. 315/2025, dated 12.02.2025 and for other reliefs. Admittedly, this was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.10.2025.

¶19

The reading of the order shows that IA 859/2025 has been filed for receiving the additional documents and the counter is not filed by the appellant/respondent and also taking into consideration the submissions of both sides, learned Presiding Officer, allowed the restoration application most obviously for giving an opportunity to the applicants/respondents herein to prosecute the securitization application. The application to set aside the order was filed immediately on dismissal of the securitization application for non-prosecution.

¶20

In the said circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the respondents should be given an opportunity to prosecute the appeal and get the appeal to be disposed on merits. In this view of the matter, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai and thus, the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the

¶21

¶22

learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, in MA 431/2025 in SA 136/2025 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any shall stand closed.

¶23

[Dictated to Steno (ra) in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 7^th day of August, 2026]

¶24

Sd/[Justice G. Chandrasekharan] Chairperson

¶25

Ms Bajaj Finance Limited v. Jeya Cashew Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Bajaj Finance Limited v. Jeya Cashew Industries

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

Brunthavathy versus Karur Vysya Bank

New India Cooperative Bank Limited versus G Rathinavelu

Mr N K Mohta versus Edelweissassetreconstruction Company Ltd.

K Surendran and another versus Canara Bank

Soma Enterprises Limited versus Union Bank of India

Penku Alias Fathima versus South Indian Bank