Dismissed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Janatha Motors by Its Prop v Sanjay

DRAT10 Feb 2026MISC APPEAL/68/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed against a DRT order directing status quo on a single loan account secured by two separate properties under different jurisdictions. The Tribunal set aside its own earlier finding but ultimately dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with conditional terms, directing parties to plead before the DRT in the main stay application.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to bear their own costs; pending IA closed; appeal disposed of with liberty to raise grounds in the main stay application before the DRT.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Janatha Motors by Its Prop v… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 10^th day of February, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

MA(SA) 68/2025

¶5

( arising out of IA 1321/2025 in SA No.456/2025 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

¶6

Between

¶7

The Authorised Officer, Linghi Chetty Street, Union Bank of India, Parry’s Corner, George Town, Asset Recovery Branch (ARB) Chennai 600 001. At No.9, ‘Elconso Complex’ Casa Major Road, On behalf of its Vengaikkal Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Now shifted to : Mrs. Smitha K., Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶8

Linghi Chetty Street, Parry’s Corner, George Town, Chennai 600 001.

¶9

…..Appellant Bank

¶10

M/s Janatha Motors, Rep. by its Proprietor, 2. R. G. Vijayan, V. Sanjai, S/o Mr. Govindan, 147A, Chengam Road, No.19, 5^th Street, Gandhi Thiruvannamalai 606 603 Nagar, Tiruvannamalai 606 601.

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Mrs. Shobakumar, Mr. V. Sanjai, W/o Mr.G. Vijayan, S/o G. Vijayan, No.19, 5^th Street, Gandhi No.19, 5^th Street, Gandhi Nagar, Nagar, Tiruvannamalai 606 601.

¶13

Tiruvannamalai 606 601.

¶14

…..Respondents

¶15

¶16

Counsel for appellant Bank : M/s N. Venkateswaran & Co. Counsel for Respondent : M/s K.J. Parthasarathy & Co.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Learned Counsel for both sides are present.

¶19

This appeal is filed against the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai in IA 1321/2025 in SA No.456/2025 dated 29.7.2025 Learned Presiding Officer, after recording the submissions of Learned Counsel appearing for parties, recorded that there are two different orders from two different Ld. CJMs for a single loan account and the applicant has filed two different SAs, therefore, defendant bank/auction purchaser is directed to maintain status quo as on that day with regard to the structure of the property subject to deposit of 5% of the amount due within 10 days and further to deposit an equal sum within one month thereafter.

¶20

It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant bank that there were two different properties and two applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were filed before two different Ld. CJM Courts. Therefore, two different orders have been passed for the same loan account. Though loan was single, the owners of the properties are different persons. Properties are situated in different locations, coming under two different CJM courts’ jurisdiction. In the said background, two different orders under Section 14 were obtained from two different Ld. CJMs. Learned Presiding Officer used this only ground for granting status quo . Therefore, this appeal is filed.

¶21

In reply to this submission, Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents could only comply with the first part of the condition. In view of non compliance of the second part, stay application was dismissed. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal and the validity of the orders passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, can be decided in the main SA, which is pending.

¶22

¶23

In reply, Learned Counsel for the appellant bank submitted that possession had been delivered to the auction purchaser prior to filing of the aforesaid SA. Auction Purchaser is not a party in the SA. But, the interim order was granted against the auction purchaser also.

¶24

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶25

From the submissions made and recorded above, it can be gathered that though there was only one loan account, there are two properties in which security interest was created by two different owners. Both properties are situated in different locations coming under two different CJM Courts. Therefore, obtaining two different orders from two different Ld. CJMs under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, cannot be put to challenge. Thus, Learned Presiding Officer’s finding is necessarily to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

¶26

Be that as it may. In view of the non compliance of the conditional order, the stay application was dismissed, by the Tribunal. This appeal is filed against the order passed in the stay application. In view of the dismissal of the stay application, nothing survives in this appeal. Parties are at liberty to raise all the grounds raised now, before DRT in the SA.

¶27

Accordingly, this Appeal MA (SA) 68/2025 is disposed of. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶30

Union Bank of India v. Ms Janatha Motors by Its Prop v Sanjay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Janatha Motors by Its Prop v Sanjay

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

Aks Cold Storage Limited versus Indian Bank

Aks Cold Storage Limited versus Indian Bank

Aks Cold Storage Limited versus Indian Bank

M/s Om Muruga Merchant and Two Other versus The Authorised Officer Arka Fincap Limited

Uco Bank versus Ms a K Jajee

Mohanasundari versus M/D Repoc Home Finance Limited