Allowed

Sun Milk products Represented by its proprietor periyar dasan samraj and two others v. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT26 May 2026SA/256/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal held the Special Appeal challenging a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act to be maintainable, accepting the applicant's argument that the limitation period calculated from the date of receipt was not exceeded.

What did the court decide?

The objection regarding the delay in filing the Special Appeal is overruled; the SA is held to be maintainable.

Sun Milk products Represented by its proprietor periyar dasan… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of May, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY Presiding Officer

¶4

NDN (SA) No.2098 of 2025

¶5

M/s Sun Milk Products

¶6

Rep. by its Proprietor

¶7

Mr. Periyar Dasan Samraj

¶8

Door No.59/1A21G

¶9

Thiruyalam Village and Post Natrampalli Main Road, Tirupattur

¶10

Vellore, Tamil Nadu – 635851

¶11

Periyar Dasan Samraj

¶12

S/o Samraj

¶13

Door No.77, Parthasarathi Street

¶14

Jollarpet, Vellore, Tamil Nadu – 635 851

¶15

¶16

Mrs. Indira Periyar Dasan

¶17

W/o Periyar Dasan Samraj

¶18

Door No.77, Parthasarathi Street

¶19

Jollarpet, Vellore, Tamil Nadu – 635 851 …Applicants

¶20

Versus

¶21

The Authorized Officer M/s Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited South Legal Department 9^th Floor, BMTC Building No.36, 80 feet Road, Koramangala 6^th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru Karnataka – 560 095 … Respondent

¶22

ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY

¶23

This SA has been filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 15.10.2025 issued by the respondent.

¶24

¶25

The Registry has placed this case before this Tribunal for hearing on the question of maintainability.

¶26

The objection of the registry is that SA is filed with delay of 11 days, hence petition to condone the delay with fee has to be filed.

¶27

On the other hand, the applicant has submitted as follows:

¶28

“ SA filed with the Limitation. Challenging the possession notice which the copy was received by post on 27.10.2025. Hence the SA comes under the Limitation. Application filed based on the copies received on 27.10.2025 (original postal cover at Page Nos. 38 & 39) enclosed”.

¶29

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

¶30

The brief facts as submitted by the applicant relevant for adjudication are that the possession notice under the SARFAESI Act is dated 15.10.2025. The said notice was dispatched by the respondent Bank on 24.10.2025 and was admittedly received by the applicant on 27.10.2025. The present SA has been filed on 11.12.2025.

¶31

The contention of the applicant is that the limitation period of 45 days is to be computed from the date of receipt of the possession notice i.e., 27.10.2025 is within time.

¶32

On perusal of the postal cover and the documents produced by the applicant, it prima facie appears that the Possession Notice dated 15.10.2025 was received by the applicant on 27.10.2025. The applicant

¶33

¶34

has filed the present SA within the statutory period reckoned from the date of receipt/service of the notice.

¶35

At this stage, there is sufficient material to accept the contention of the applicant that the SA has been filed within limitation. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry regarding delay of 11 days cannot be sustained.

¶36

10. Accordingly, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

SA is held to be maintainable. The objection raised by the Registry is overruled. Registry is directed to number the SA, if the same is otherwise found to be in order.

¶39

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II CHENNAI

¶40

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

¶41

Sun Milk products Represented by its proprietor periyar dasan samraj and two others v. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sun Milk products Represented by its proprietor periyar dasan samraj and two others v. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited

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

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sisthi Leathers

Sujatha Kumaravel versus State Bank of India

Poovai Amman Avency and Others versus City Union Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sumuka Cnc Tech

S Sundar versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

M/s.Vantage Resorts & Clubs Pvt. Ltd. & Others versus Andhra Bank

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sisthi Leathers

Sujatha Kumaravel versus State Bank of India

Poovai Amman Avency and Others versus City Union Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sumuka Cnc Tech

S Sundar versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

M/s.Vantage Resorts &amp; Clubs Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Others versus Andhra Bank

M/s.Vantage Resorts & Clubs Pvt. Ltd. & Others versus Andhra Bank