Allowed

Asokan Kuppan v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

DRT5 Aug 2026SA/525/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application challenging a Section 14 order under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal allowed the stay on enforcement conditions. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs.30 lakhs by 30th August 2026 as security for the stay, with the interim order automatically vacated if the payment was not made.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application; directed the applicant to deposit Rs.30,00,000/- by 30.08.2026 to secure an interim stay on the Section 14 order. Failure to pay would vacate the stay and allow the bank to pr

Asokan Kuppan versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IA No.1758/2026 In SA No.525/2026

¶2

05.08.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 05^th day of August, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

IA No.1758 of 2026

¶8

¶9

SA No. 525 of 2026

¶10

Mr. Asokan Kuppan, S/o. Kuppan, No.1/4, Buddhar Street, Senur RF, Vellore, Tamil Nadu – 632 006.

¶11

…Applicant

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

M/s. Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt, Ltd., Acting as Trustee Pegasus Group, Thirty-Nine Trust – 1, Represented by its Authorized Officer,

¶14

Mr. Sankar Balasubramanian

¶15

HMH Plaza, 1^st Floor, Gopathy Narayana Road, Giri road, T. Nagar,

¶16

Chennai – 600 017.

¶17

Late. Sarangapani Arjunan, S/o Late. Arjunan,

¶18

Rep. by his Legal Heir Mrs. Rajeshwari Narayana Swamy

¶19

Mrs. Rajeshwari Narayana Swamy, W/o Late A. Sarangapani, Residing at, No.96, F-1, 1^st Floor, West Balaji Nagar, 1^st Main Road, Opp-to T.C.S. Ltd., Kallikuppam, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.

¶20

Mrs. Rajeshwari Narayana Swamy also at:

¶21

No.6, S.V. Nagar, Sivaji Ganesan Street,

¶22

Oragadam, Ambattur,

¶23

Chennai – 600 053.

¶24

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.08.2026 at 12:38 p.m.

¶25

IA No.1758/2026 In SA No.525/2026

¶26

¶27

05.08.2026

¶28

M/s. RBL Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Anand Business Centre, 105/56, G.N. Chetty Road, Chennai – 600 017.

¶29

…Respondents

¶30

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶31

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. S. Ram Prasad Counsel for 1^st Respondent : Mr. K. Ramesh undertakes to file Vakalat

¶32

ORDER ON IA 1758/2026 In SA 525/2026

¶33

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section [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 Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶34

The applicant is a third party to the loan transactions and to the measures initiated by the bank has filed the present SA challenging the Section 14 order dated 25.05.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.671 of 2026 passed by the Ld. CJM, Tiruvallur.

¶35

The applicant claims to be the legal heir of Mrs. Kalyani who is one of the share holders of secured asset who died on 07.12.2018. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondent have mortgaged the property with 4^th respondent vide MODT dated 15.02.2017 which is registered as Doc.No.1528/2017 before SRO, Ambattur for a loan amount of Rs.1.00 crores. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents have manipulated the documents, hence the applicant has

¶36

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.08.2026 at 12:38 p.m.

¶37

IA No.1758/2026 In SA No.525/2026

¶38

¶39

05.08.2026

¶40

filed a suit in O.S.No.253 of 2019 before the Hon’ble III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee which is pending for consideration.

¶41

The applicant has a co-share owner of the property is enjoying the possession and prays for stay of Section 14 order. Further, the applicant is relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble DRAT, Kolkata in Mr. Mirza Sardar Baig vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. in Appeal No.5 of 2025. Heard the applicant

¶42

As the applicant claims to be having co-share of the property and without going into the merits or adjudicating the right over the property an opportunity is given to the applicant to show his bonafides. Hence, the applicant is hereby directed to make payment of Rs.30,00,000/- of the outstanding amount of Rs.1,68,08,552.24/- to be paid on or before 30.08.2026.

¶43

Accordingly, IA No.1758 of 2026 stands allowed. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to make the payment of Rs.30,00,000/- on or before 30.08.2026, the interim order of stay automatically stands vacated and the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further. Further, the right of the applicant over the secured asset is not adjudicated in the present IA. List the matter on 03.09.2026 for compliance and for counter.

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 05^th day of August, 2026)

¶46

Uploaded in E-Drt on 05.08.2026 at 12:38 p.m.

Asokan Kuppan v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asokan Kuppan v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

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

Uco Bank versus M/s Chennai Team Lines

Bank of India versus the Government Telecommunication Employees Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Uthayam Foods

Mr Shrenik Chand Nahar versus Bank of Maharashtra

Union Bank of India versus Malarkodi

City Union Bank Limited versus S Avani