Disposed

D Murugesan v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT13 Jan 2026SA/35/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an objection regarding a 3-day filing delay in an electronic Special Application challenging a SARFAESI Act order. The Presiding Officer directed the Registry to number the application but reserved the limitation question for determination at the final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to number the application, keeping the limitation question open to be decided at the time of the final hearing.

D Murugesan versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 13^th day of January, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

NDN(SA) No.2166 of 2025

¶5

D. Murugesan S/o Dharmarajan No.25, Rajaji Road Srinivasapuram, Thanjavur – 613 009

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank Thanjavur Main Branch T.S. No.1604, South Main Road Thanjavur – 613 009 …Respondent

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This SA has been filed challenging the order of the Ld. Counsel,

¶11

Thanjavur at Kumbakonam made in Crl.M.P.No.770/2025 dated 06.11.2025 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶12

The Registry of this Tribunal raised an objection to the effect that the

¶13

SA has been filed with a delay of 3 days. It is the observation of the Registry that the application has been filed through e-DRT on 20.12.2025 and last document was uploaded on 24.12.2025. It is the contention of the Registry that as per the Gazette notification Rule 4(3) procedure for e- filing

¶14

the date of filing of the pleadings in the Tribunal shall be the date of submission of the last page of a pleadings through e-DRT system.

¶15

The objection is based on Rule 4(3) of The Debts Recovery Tribunals

¶16

and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic Filing Rules, 2020,

¶17

“Where the pleading is filed in electronic form and in paper form by the applicant, before the Registry, the date of filing of the pleadings in the Tribunal shall be the date of submission of the last page of a pleading through the e-DRT system.”

¶18

The last page of the SA was uploaded through e-DRT system on

¶19

24.12.2025, which falls 3 days beyond the limitation period.

¶20

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant, however, contends that the SA

¶21

was presented for filing within the prescribed limitation period i.e., on 20.12.2025 and that the 3 days delay that had occurred is solely due to the technical uploading procedure. It is contended that such a delay should not defeat the applicant’s substantive right to seek redress under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶22

I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and the caveator / respondent bank. Perused the record.

¶23

It is true that the Electronic Filing Rules 2020 defines the date of filing

¶24

as the date on which the last page of the pleading is submitted through the

¶25

e-filing system. However, when there exist a factual dispute regarding the time and mode of such submission, and where the applicant asserts that the filing was initiated within limitation, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the matter at the threshold merely on a technical interpretation of procedural rules.

¶26

It will also be pertinent to note that section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal is guided by the principles of natural justice and not strictly bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶27

Further when the question of limitation depends upon disputable facts, such issues cannot be decided merely on the basis of the endorsement of the Registry. The Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction to consider the same at the time of final adjudication after hearing both parties.

¶28

Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity the issue of limitation is kept upon for determination at the time of final hearing.

¶29

Taking into account, the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and in the interest of justice, the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

“Registry is directed to number the SA, leaving open the question of

¶32

limitation to be decided at the time of final hearing / orders and if the same is otherwise found to be in order.”

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 13^th day of January, 2026)

D Murugesan v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Murugesan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. Vidot Sheila Agnes

State Bank of India versus Krishnan Ponnambalam

M Lakshmi Priya versus Bank of Baroda

C Jaichand versus State Bank of India

Idbi Bank Limited versus M Durairajan @ Durairajan

Abikavi Nattu Kozhi versus 16