Disposed

Challani Ranka Jewellery v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT7 Nov 2025SA/635/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal addressed an application challenging Section 14 measures. The court directed the registry to number the application but left the question of limitation and maintainability open to be decided at the time of final orders, citing a High Court precedent regarding service of notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the registry to number the Securitization Application, leaving the question of limitation open for decision at the time of final orders.

Challani Ranka Jewellery versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 7^th day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

NDN(SA) No.1637 of 2025

¶5

M/s Challani Ranka Jewellery

¶6

Rep. by its Partner Mr. Sumti A Challani

¶7

No.119, NSC Bose Road

¶8

First Floor, Sowcarpet

¶9

Chennai – 600 079

¶10

R.J. Anandmul S/o Jawarilal Jain

¶11

No.2, Ritherdon Road 2^nd Street, Ritherdon Avenue

¶12

Vepery, Chennai – 600 007

¶13

Sumti A Challani

¶14

S/o Mr. R. J. Anandmul

¶15

No.2, Ritherdon Road 2^nd Street, Ritherdon Avenue Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 …Applicants

¶16

Versus

¶17

The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank Asset Recovery Management Branch 3^rd Floor, Annexe Building Central Office Building 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 …Respondent

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Securitization Application has been filed by the applicants challenging

¶20

the measures initiated under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by the

¶21

Authorised Officer of the Respondent by obtaining order from Ld. Chief

¶22

¶23

Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpat in C. M.P. No.2197 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025.

¶24

The Registry has placed this case before the Bench for deciding on the question of maintainability of this SA.

¶25

The Registry of this Tribunal has sought for clarification regarding the delay of 9 days in filing the SA. The applicant has replied stating that the applicants are not served with the notice of the Section 14 proceedings before the Ld. CJM, Chengalpat and they came to know of the proceedings only on receipt of the letter of the Advocate Commissioner dated 28.08.2025 and from which date the SA has been filed within the period of limitation.

¶26

Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that from the date of knowledge i.e., from the date of receipt of the letter of the Advocate Commissioner dated 28.8.2025, the SA is filed within the period of limitation and hence there is no necessity for filing a separate petition for condoning the delay. Ld. Counsel would contend that the impugned action of the respondent obtaining the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is in clear disobedience of the order of status quo passed by this Tribunal in SA No.135/2024, wherein the interim order was subsisting till

¶27

¶28

7.8.2025. It is also stated that the applicant has every right to challenge the impugned order and produced the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP (DRT) No.73 of 2017(O) dated 23.06.2017. Ld. Counsel prayed for directing the registry to number the SA.

¶29

On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Caveator / Respondent submitted that the prayer in the present SA is not sustainable in view of the fact that the physical possession of the property has already been taken pursuant to the impugned order and the Advocate Commissioner has returned the warrant also. It is stated that if at all the applicant would challenge is only the action of taking physical possession only and to restore the possession and not the order of the Ld. CJM. Ld. Counsel stated that this SA has been filed post taking physical possession of the property and hence the prayer in the present SA is not maintainable. Ld. Counsel submits that the interim order passed by this Tribunal in SA No.135/2014 is only with respect to the order under challenge which is the sale notice and hence the bank has rightly proceeded under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession and the action of the respondent cannot be termed as contempt of the orders of this Tribunal. It is stated that SA No.135/2014 and the present SA are for difference cause

¶30

of action and the status quo with regard to the sale of the property is independent from the action of the respondent under Section 14 of the

¶31

¶32

SARFAESI Act. With regard to the period of limitation, Ld. Counsel would contend that the submission of the applicant that the SA has been filed within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge cannot be accepted for the reason that during the course of the arguments in SA No.135/2024 and in the counter filed in SA No.541 of 2025, the respondent has clearly intimated that the physical possession of the secured asset has already been taken and prayed for dismissing the SA on the question of limitation itself.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and the Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank.

¶34

The question now before this Tribunal is that whether the SA has been filed within the period of limitation or not?

¶35

Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act provides that any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) may make an application to the Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which such measure has been taken.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the order of the Ld. CJM, Chengalpat dated 31.7.2025 was passed without notice to the applicants and the applicants claim to have gained knowledge only on 28.08.2025 through the letter of

¶37

¶38

the Advocate Commissioner. The respondent’s claim that the applicant knew earlier through the pleadings in the SAs viz., during the course of the arguments in SA No.135/2024 and by the counter filed by the respondent in SA No.541 of 2025. Further, it is the contention of the respondent that the physical possession of the secured asset has already been taken and hence the prayer in the present SA is not sustainable.

¶39

In view of the averments made in the S.No.4 “Limitation” and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P(MD) No. 3073/2024 dated 12.02.2024 P.Jeyakumari Vs The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank wherein Hon’ble High Court has held;

¶40

“If the Tribunal found that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was communicated to the petitioner only on 05.02.2024 then the petitioner’s appeal can be entertained by the Tribunal without insisting upon a condone delay application. If it is found that the petitioner had knowledge about the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate prior to the said date, then it is for the Tribunal to decide whether the appeal can be entertained without filing any application for condonation of delay. It is open to the respondent bank to canvas their objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

¶41

Taking into account the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels and in

¶42

view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court referred Supra, this Tribunal is of the view that in the interest of justice, registry be directed to

¶43

the number the SA, leaving open the question of limitation to be decided at

¶44

¶45

the time of passing final orders and with liberty to the respondent to put forth their contention regarding the limitation and the maintainability of the SA during the course of final arguments.

¶46

Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Registry is directed to the number the SA, leaving open the question of limitation to be decided at the time of passing final orders and if same is otherwise found to be in order.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶51

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 7^th day of November, 2025)

¶52

Challani Ranka Jewellery v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Challani Ranka Jewellery 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E Mahadevan versus Bank of Baroda

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Thangaiyan Kanmani

City Union Bank Limited versus Dr S Saravanan

Canara Bank, Hosur Sme Branch versus M/s Sri Vigneshwara Industries

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s. Real Tech Power Controls

Indian Overseas Bank versus S. Vasanth