Dismissed

Natarajan v. Indian Bank

DRT24 Mar 2026SA/250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT admitted that physical possession of the impugned property had been taken by the Advocate Commissioner. Holding that nothing survives for adjudication on merits, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's affidavit challenging the sale notice without deciding the sale case on merits.

What did the court decide?

Affidavit filed by applicant to clear balance debt was dismissed; matter noted for arguments on SA dated 13.05.2025.

Natarajan versus Indian Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

SA No.250/2024

24.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 250 of 2024

¶9

Natarajan, S/o. Selvarasu, No. 4, Kuyavar Street, Murungapakkam, Puducherry- 605 004. ….Applicant -VsAuthorised Officer, Indian Bank, Villianoor Branch, No. 9/53, Pondy Road, Villianoor, Pondicherry- 605 110. ….Respondent

¶10

Order on Affidavit filed by applicant.

¶11

Applicant has filed the present SA Challenging the Sec.14 order dated

¶12

05.04.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.1823 of 2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, this Hon’ble Tribunal had granted an interim order on Status Quo on conditional payment to deposit 10% of the total debt amount of Rs.38,35,368/- vide order dated 14.05.2024. The first amount of 10% shall be paid within five days from the date of order and another 10% within two months thereafter.

¶13

Applicant now has filed an affidavit dated 14.11.2025 contenting that he has complied with the interim order and the bank has issued the sale notice dated 13.05.2025 fixing the date of sale 30.05.2025 by e-auction which is challenged the Sale the applicant has also filed the SA.348.2025 before this Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 03.06.2025 and directed the respondent bank to proceed with the sale but sale confirmation was deferred.

SA No.250/2024

24.03.2026

Applicant contends that he has made the payment and the balance amount of Rs.14,35,368/- would be paid within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the affidavit and further has prayed the Tribunal to de-seal the premises.

¶18

The respondent bank has opposed the affidavit contending that the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the CJM court went to execute the order, however the applicant was resisting and emotionally blackmailed the officers of alleged ending his life. The applicant’s son Mr. Venkatesh had requested the police to give some time to take the physical possession of property and also time to take the left over things in the property.

¶19

It is seen that the Advocate Commissioner has taken the physical possession along with the Sub-Inspector and have filed its report before the CJM court. Further the list of inventories was also filed along with the report of the Advocate Commissioner. That being the case, the applicant has now filed the present affidavit intending to clear the balance amount. However, as the physical possession is already taken nothing survives for adjudication in the matter and the matter to be decided on merits.

¶20

Accordingly, affidavit filed by the applicant is dismissed. For arguments of the SA finally dated 13.05.2025. Sd/-

¶21

(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 24^th day of March, 2026)

Natarajan v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natarajan v. Indian Bank

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

Union Bank of India versus Darshan Plastics

Icici Bank Limited versus Manisha Ajay Sood

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sham Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Rajinder Pal Singh

Ms Rimpa and Simpa Enterprise And Ors. versus Indian Bank

c Nayarayanamma versus Canara Bank