Disposed

K murugan v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT26 Mar 2026SA/163/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Chennai directed registry to number a Securitization Application challenging a Section 14 order despite a 165-day delay, entrusting the court to decide the limitation issue only after hearing the respondent bank.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to number the Securitization Application, leaving the question of limitation to be decided in the final order after hearing the respondent.

K murugan versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

NDN (SA) No.342 of 2026

¶5

K. Murugan S/o Kannan O, Murugan Nagar, Pondy Road PDO Office Opposite Marakkanam, Villupuram – 604 303 …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Authorized Officer Indian Overseas Bank No.141, Hospital Road Kallakurichi – 606 202 ..Respondent

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Securitization Application has been filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi in Crl. M.P. No.1998 of 2025 dated 29.07.2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶10

The case is placed before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability. The Registry of this Tribunal has raised the following objection: -

¶11

¶12

“Registry’s sought for clarification regarding the SA filed with delay of 165 days. Hence COD petition along with fee has to be filed.”

¶13

Whereas Counsel for the Applicant stated that:

¶14

“The applicant came to know about the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate only on 07.02.2026 by the Advocate Commissioner after receiving the warrant on 09.01.2026. Hence from the issuing warrant the application is filed. SA filed on 21.02.2026, upload on 24.02.2026 well within limitation. May be posted for maintainability.”

¶15

Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the respondent has obtained the Section 14 order against dead persons. It is submitted that the SA has been filed by one of the legal heirs. Ld. Counsel also referred to the report of the Advocate Commissioner at Page 39 and submits that in the said report itself it is clearly mentioned that both persons have died and despite the said report the respondent bank had obtained a fresh warrant in the name of the different Advocate Commissioner. Ld. Counsel submits that the SA has been filed well within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge i.e., service of the advocate commissioner’s notice.

¶16

Respondent bank entered appearance by filing vakalat and prayed time for filing counter in the main SA.

¶17

Registry has raised an objection regarding filing of the SA not within the period of limitation as the present SA has been filed with the delay of 165

¶18

¶19

days from the date of the order of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi. However, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the SA is filed within in the period of limitation from the date of knowledge of the orders of Ld. CJM i.e., only on the service of the Advocate commissioner notice on 09.01.2026.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. Perused the records.

¶21

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

¶22

Officer, Indian Bank wherein Hon’ble High Court has held;

¶23

“ 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.”

¶24

Taking into account the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant regarding maintainability and in view of the submission of the applicant that the impugned order has been obtained against dead persons and in view of the fact that the submissions of the applicant can

¶25

¶26

be ascertained only after hearing the respondent and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court referred Supra, in the interest of justice, registry is directed to the number the SA, leaving open the question of limitation to be decided at the time of passing final orders, if the same is otherwise found to be in order.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 26^th day of March, 2026)

¶30

K murugan v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K murugan 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

State Bank of India versus M Madhavan

Paneer Ramachandran versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M s Mayas Beauty and Wellness Centre

State Bank of India versus Prathyusha Resources Infra Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mamta Bohra

Canara Bank versus M s Nanjil Udhayam Chekku Oil