Disposed

D v. K Rathinamma v Indian Overseas Bank

DRT2 Apr 2026SA/141/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed a securitization application challenging an e-auction sale notice for a compliance deposit dispute with a secured creditor. The applicant complied with the interim stay condition. The applicant subsequently sought withdrawal of the sale notice, alleging non-impleadment of legal heirs. The applicant withdrew the application and closed pending inquiries.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of as withdrawn; pending inquiries closed; interim order vacated.

D v K Rathinamma versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA No.141/2026

02.04.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 141 of 2026

¶8

D.V.K. Rathinammma, F/83 years Wife of Late D. Chenchaiah, 3rd floor, Door No.57, 1st Link Street, Ragava Colony Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. ….Applicant -Vs-

¶9

Indian Overseas Branch Asset Recovery Management Branch Annexe Building 3rd floor 763, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. Rep. by its Authorized officer. ….Respondent

¶10

ORDER ON SA 141/2026

¶11

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 25.02.2026 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶12

The applicant has challenged the e-auction sale notice dated 02.02.2026 fixing the e-auction sale on 09.03.2026. This Hon’ble Tribunal had granted an interim stay on condition directing the applicant to deposit 20% of the amount mentioned in the sale notice.

¶13

The respondent submits that the conditional order was duly complied

¶14

with by the applicant. Subsequently bank has filed memo submitting that

SA No.141/2026

02.04.2026

their withdrawing the measures. The applicant had challenged the Sale Notice dated 02.02.2026 fixing the e-auction sale on 09.03.2026 and the applicant had obtained the interim order which is complied. Bank intends to withdraw the sale notice as legal heirs of the mortgagor are not impleaded and made as party in the sale notice.

¶19

Memo filed by the bank is taken on record. Accordingly, SA stands disposed off as withdrawn in terms of the memo filed by the respondent bank. All the pending IAs stands closed. Interim order, stands vacated.

¶20

Further any challenge to other measures is not within the period of 45 days.

¶21

Sd/- (S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶22

( Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 2^nd day of April, 2026)

D v. K Rathinamma v Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D v. K Rathinamma v Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arc versus Ssgm Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus R

State Bank of India versus Thirupathi Balaji Tiles Rep By Mrs N Selvi And Two Others

Charles Rajakumar versus State Bank of India

Vijaya Babu versus Union Bank of India

C Pazhaniraja versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited