Partly allowed

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT26 Mar 2026SA/212/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dealt with an interim application moving for stay on an auction scheduled for the same day. While opposing the stay, the bank cited prior attempts at resolution. The Tribunal granted a conditional stay dependent on immediate fund deposit, listing the matter for further compliance.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay granted on conditional payment of Rs. 3.5 crores to be made before 2:00 pm on 26.03.2026; matter listed for compliance.

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others versus Indian Overseas… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IA No.648/2026 In SA No.212/2026

¶2

26.03.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

IA No. 648 of 2026 In SA No. 212 of 2026

¶9

M/s. Inno Infra Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, Mr. Sajid Ahmed Sathak Abdul Kadir, No.6, Crown Court, (Ground Floor) No.128, Cathedral Road,

¶10

Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086 …& 9 others

¶11

…Applicants

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Asset Recovery Branch, Third Floor, Central Office Annex Building, No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶14

…Respondent

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. BFS Legal Counsel for Respondent : Ms. F.B. Benjamin George

¶17

ORDER ON IA No.648/2026 In SA No.212/2026

¶18

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section

¶19

[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

¶20

Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶21

IA No.648/2026 In SA No.212/2026

¶22

¶23

26.03.2026

¶24

The 1^st applicant is the company represented by its director 2^nd applicant here in, the applicants have filed the present SA challenging the Sale notice dated 07.03.2026 scheduling the property to be sold on 26.03.2026 (Today). The challenge to the Sale notice dated 07.03.2026 is on three grounds, contending that there is no affixture of the Sale notice and the Sale notice is not served properly as per Rule 9(1) of SIE Rules and the schedule property is under valued. Further, it is also contended that classification of the loan account as NPA is against the RBI guidelines.

¶25

The respondent bank counsel was present and opposes for any stay of the auction sale as the auction is scheduled today and the applicants have approached the Tribunal at last minute. Further the respondent bank submits that applicants had agreed for OTS for an amount of Rs.8.00 crores for the total outstanding due amount of Rs.22,94,58,098/- and subsequently applicants have agreed to pay Rs.6.00 crores via mediation.

¶26

The applicants have expressed their willingness to settle the liability and to make some payment today to show his bonafides, further he is ready to make a payment of Rs.3.00 crores to defer the sale.

¶27

Heard both the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶28

The records of the case clearly reflects that there is no dispute with regard to the availing of the credit facilities and the mortgage of the property as collateral security towards the credit facilities availed. Further it is seen from the records that the applicants have also made attempts to settle the liability vide OTS letter dated 28.10.2022 for an amount of

¶29

IA No.648/2026 In SA No.212/2026

¶30

¶31

26.03.2026

¶32

Rs.12.00 crores, OTS letter dated 02.11.2022 for an amount of Rs.12.00 crores. It is seen that the property was put to auction vide Sale notice dated 07.12.2022, 01.02.2023 and various OTS proposals and letter have been produced by the applicant here in.

¶33

Further, it is also seen that the respondent bank has already obtained the Section 14 order dated 14.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1316 of 2024 and it is also seen that the applicants have invoked the Writ Jurisdiction in classification of the loan account as fraud seeking for Writ of Mandamus.

¶34

Thus, it is evident that the present Sale notice is the 3^rd Sale notice and the applicants though had given various OTS proposals has failed to settle the entire liability even as on today. Further the applicants have also produced the proof of availability of Rs.2.00 crores in the bank account vide A/c No.10901000063797 held in the name of the applicants which is produced at Page No.363.

¶35

As the applicants have already produced the proof of availability of funds, the respondent bank submits that schedule mentioned properties which were put for sale out of which there are bidders for two other properties, hence opposes for any stay for ongoing sale which is being conducted today.

¶36

However, considering the submissions of the applicant, the Tribunal feels it apt to grant an Interim stay of Sale to be held on today on a conditional payment of Rs.3.5 crores to be paid today on or before 2.00 p.m., today (26.03.2026). In case, if the applicants fail to make the

¶37

IA No.648/2026 In SA No.212/2026

¶38

26.03.2026

¶39

¶40

payment today, the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed with the auction sale without waiting for further orders. List the matter on

¶41

27.03.2026 for report of bids and for compliance.

¶42

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

¶43