Allowed¶44

Sri Venkatesh Shyam Kumar v. City Union Bank Ltd.

Madras HC29 Jul 2025CRP/2495/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; C.R.P.; revision against Debts Recovery Tribunal order; non-speaking order; mechanical order; perfunctory; application of mind; defences not considered; set aside and remand; fresh consideration; two-month timeline; RDB Act 1993 Section 19 (20) & (25); City Union Bank Ltd.; O.A.No.249 of 2019; Rs.6,82,07,606.05; 13.50% per annum simple interest; concession by respondent bank; CMP No.13066 of 2024 closed; Debts Recovery Tribunal Coimbatore.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; order dated 02.05.2024 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in O.A.No.249 of 2019 set aside; case remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, to be decided within an outer limit of two months; nothing expressed on merits; no order as to costs; CMP No.13066 of 2024 closed. ¶44

Sri Venkatesh Shyam Kumar Vs City Union Bank Ltd. — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.05.2024 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in O.A.No.249 of 2019 is a non-speaking order passed without application of mind, failing to consider the defences raised by the petitioners. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The Tribunal did not apply its mind and allowed the bank's original application by a complete non-speaking order.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondent conceded the position, the revision petition stands allowed; the Tribunal's order is set aside and the case is remanded for consideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶44

Key takeaways

The Tribunal shall decide the remanded matter within an outer limit of two months.ratio¶44
This Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the issue.ratio¶44
There shall be no order as to costs and CMP No.13066 of 2024 is closed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (order made by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, sitting with Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.) allowed C.R.P.No.2495 of 2024 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by three petitioners (defendants before the Tribunal) against City Union Bank Ltd. The impugned order dated 02.05.2024 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in O.A.No.249 of 2019 - by which the bank's recovery application was allowed and the defendants were directed to pay Rs.6,82,07,606.05 with future contractual interest @ 13.50% per annum (simple rate), invoking Section 19 (20) & (25) of the RDB Act, 1993 - was held to be a complete non-speaking order passed without application of mind, ignoring the defences raised by the petitioners. Counsel for the bank conceded the defect and was unable to support the order. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law within an outer limit of two months; the Court expressly reserved the merits; no order as to costs; CMP No.13066 of 2024 closed.

¶1

C.R.P.No.2495 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.07.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶8

C.R.P.No.2495 of 2024

¶9

Sri Venkatesh Shyam Kumar 17, Alagesan Road Sai Baba Colony Coimbatore 64101.

¶10

G.Jawahar 3. Rajalakshmi Jawahar .. Petitioners Vs.

¶11

City Union Bank Ltd. With its administrative Office at 24-B, Gandhi Nagar Kumbakonam 001 Branch at 27-30, Sarojini Street Ramnagar, Coimbatore 009. .. Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 02.05.2024 made in O.A.No.249 of 2019 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

C.R.P.No.2495 of 2024

¶16

Coimbatore.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Pandiane Kailash For M/s. Aiyar and Dolia For Respondent : M/s.K.R.Ananda Gomathy

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶20

Heard. With the consent of parties, this revision petition is heard finally.

¶21

The order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery

¶22

Tribunal in O.A.No.249 of 2019 is assailed mainly on the ground that though the petitioners raised various issues and tenable grounds to challenge the action of the respondent bank, as detailed in the original application, the Tribunal has passed a perfunctory

¶23

order and has not taken into consideration any of the grounds raised by the petitioners in their defence and the original application

¶24

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

C.R.P.No.2495 of 2024

¶27

filed by the secured creditor/bank has been allowed in a most mechanical fashion, without any application of mind and without any speaking order, as reflected from the order itself. Attention of this Court is drawn to the observation made by learned Tribunal in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned order.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent would concede to this

¶29

factual position placed on record and is unable to support the impugned order.

¶30

Concededly, the order impugned is apparently nonspeaking and does not decide the issue raised before it on the basis of various defences raised by the petitioners. We may usefully extract the relevant part of the order of the Tribunal as below:

¶31

“8. A cumulative analysis of both the Proof Affidavit and documents marked by the Applicant Bank would prove on the basis of the claim in the Proof Affidavit filed by the Applicant Bank.

¶32

9. The Applicant Bank having claimed an interest @ 13.50% compounded monthly rests and penal interest @ 2%

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.R.P.No.2495 of 2024

¶36

considered to be higher in nature, even though the Defendants have agreed to pay the same. But considering the nature of loan and the facts of the case, this Tribunal required to reduce the rate of interest and hence, by invoking the provision of RDB Act, 1993 under Section 19 (20) & (25), this Tribunal inclined to allow the interest rate as @ 13.50% per annum (simple rate) from the date of filing of the OA to the date of realization in the case.

¶37

10. Therefore, in view of the observations made supra, the OA stands allowed and the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover,

¶38

a. from the Defendants personally, jointly and severally to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.6,82,07,606.05 with future contractual interest @ 13.50% per annum (simple rate) as ordered by this Tribunal towards Term Loan, from the date of Application, to till the date of realization, failing which:

¶39

b. the Applicant Bank is entitled to bring the immovable properties which are mentioned in the Schedule Properties for sale and the sale proceeds appropriated for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,82,07,606.05 with future contractual interest @ 13.50% per annum (Simple rate) as ordered by this Tribunal towards Term Loan, from the date of Application, to till the date of realization, with Costs of this OA.”

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

C.R.P.No.2495 of 2024

¶43

A perusal of the above clearly shows that the Tribunal has not applied its mind and by a complete non-speaking order, original application filed by the bank has been allowed.

¶44

Since the respondent has conceded to the aforesaid position, this petition stands allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded for consideration afresh and in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall do well to decide the matter within an outer limit of two months. We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the issue. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.13066 of 2024 is closed.

¶45

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J) 29.07.2025

¶46

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶47

kpl

¶48

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

C.R.P.No.2495 of 2024