Allowed

M K Aromatics Ltd. v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT29 Jan 2026SA/63/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In IA No.204/2026 regarding a challenge to an auction notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal granted an interim stay contingent upon the applicant depositing Rs.80 lakhs by the scheduled auction date, noting the applicant's earlier litigation history and failure to comply with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the auction sale notice scheduled for 30.01.2026, conditional upon payment of Rs.80,00,000/- by 12 noon on 30.01.2026.

M K Aromatics Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 63/2026

¶2

29.01.2026

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the, 29^th January 2026

¶5

SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶6

IA. No.204 of 2026 in SA. No.63 of 2026

¶7

M/s. M K Aromatics Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director, Dr. Mahesh Merchant, Plot No.43-47, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Alathur, Tamil Nadu - 603110 .... Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The Authorized Officer, Bank of Maharashtra Asset Recovery branch, Bengaluru, No.465/A, 22^nd Cross, 3^rd Block, Opp. NMKRV College for Women, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560011 …Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Hari Radhakrishnan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A. Karthikeyan

¶12

ORDER IN IA No. 204/2026

¶13

The Applicant is the Registered Company registered under Micro Small and Medium Enterprise are engaged in the business and manufacturing synthetic crude oil and industrial plastics.

¶14

Applicant had availed Overdraft facility for an amount of Rs.275

¶15

Lakhs and mortgaged the property situated at Plot No. 43-47, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Alathur, Tamil Nadu – 603110. Due to default in the

¶16

SA No. 63/2026

¶17

29.01.2026

¶18

repayment, applicant has made various payment and reduced the Outstanding amount due also. However, the respondent bank has classified the loan account as NPA on 29.08.2024 and has issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice on 19.09.2025 and proceeded further under the Act. The Applicant has challenged the Sale Notice dated 09.01.2026, scheduling the property to be sold on 30.01.2026 between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. for recovery of Rs.1,86,41,379/-. The Applicant prays for stay of the auction sale notice.

¶19

It is also seen from the records, that the applicant had challenged the earlier Sale Notice dated 26.09.2025 in SA No.702/2025 and SA No.778/2025 challenging the Section 14 order dated 20.05.2025. The Tribunal had granted an Interim stay with a condition to pay 30% of the outstanding amount due. Aggrieved by the Interim Order, the applicant has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai. In the meanwhile, the bank has issued Auction Sale Notice on 09.01.2026. Further, the applicant has also challenged the Demand Notice dated 19.09.2024 and Possession Notice dated 03.12.2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No.3839 and 3842/2025. The applicant has challenged the Section 14 order dated 20.05.2025 in WP No.36790/2025 which came to be disposed off, giving liberty for the applicant to approach this Tribunal.

¶20

The main contention of the applicant is being an MSME is eligible for the Revival and Rehabilitation of the MSME Schemes, and prays for stay

¶21

SA No. 63/2026

¶22

29.01.2026

¶23

of the auction sale notice. On the other hand, respondent bank opposes for granting any stay as the applicant is frustrating the measures initiated by the Respondent Bank which is also evident by filing the present SA and invoking the Writ Jurisdiction and there are bids for the scheduled sale on 30.01.2026.

¶24

Heard, on perusal of records

¶25

The Applicant is the Borrower does not dispute the availing of the Credit Facility, the delay in the repayment and also defaulted in servicing the loan account. It is also a matter of the fact, the applicant has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction and also filed SA before this Tribunal, obtained the Interim Order in SA No.778/2025 challenging the Section 14 order which is not complied. As the applicant has no bonafides in challenging the measures and have also invoke the Writ Jurisdiction in challenging the Section 14 order.

¶26

Without going into merits of the case, the Tribunal feels it apt to grant an opportunity for the applicant to show bonafides and IA No.204/2026 for stay stands allowed directing the applicant to make a payment of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) to be paid on or before at 12 noon on 30.01.2026.

¶27

In the event of applicant complying with the conditional order above, there shall be an order of interim stay of sale scheduled on 30.01.2026. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to make the payment of Rs.80,00,000/- on or before 30.01.2026, the interim order of

¶28

SA No. 63/2026

¶29

29.01.2026

¶30

stay automatically stands vacated and the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further in auctioning the property as scheduled.

¶31

List the matter on 03.02.2026 for compliance, report of bids and for counter.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to Deepika, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court,

¶34

on this the 29^th day of January, 2026)

M K Aromatics Ltd. v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M K Aromatics Ltd. v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Abhishek Pratap

Central Bank of India versus M/S Maheshwari Ayurvedic Stores

Icici Bank Limited versus Sadiya

Central Bank of India versus Atul Kumar Tiwari S/O Shri Dinesh Prasad Sharma

Bank of India versus Praneeta

Shivani Traders versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited