Allowed¶40

Rajalakshmi Jawahar v. M/S. City Union Bank Limited

Madras HC29 Jul 2025CRP/2514/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.R.P.No.2514 of 2024; Rajalakshmi Jawahar and G.Jawahar v. City Union Bank Ltd.; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Article 227 Constitution of India; Debts Recovery Tribunal Coimbatore; O.A.No.252 of 2019; order dated 02.05.2024 set aside; non-speaking / mechanical / perfunctory order; no application of mind; defences not considered; remand for fresh decision within two months; RDB Act, 1993 Section 19 (20) & (25); Rs.11,41,78,900.70; 13.50% per annum simple future interest; OSOD Limit; CMP No.13183 of 2024 closed; decided 29.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore set aside; case remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law with a two-month outer limit for decision; no expression on merits; no order as to costs; CMP No.13183 of 2024 closed. ¶40

Rajalakshmi Jawahar Vs M/S. City Union Bank Limited — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.05.2024 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in O.A.No.252 of 2019, being a perfunctory/non-speaking order passed without considering the petitioners' defences, should be set aside in this revision under Article 227.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The impugned Tribunal order is apparently/completely non-speaking, does not decide the defences raised by the petitioners, and shows the Tribunal did not apply its mind; learned counsel for the respondent conceded this position and was unable to support the impugned order.

¶39

Key takeaways

The revision petition is allowed: the Tribunal's order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, to be decided within an outer limit of two months; the Court expresses nothing on the merits; there shall be no order as to costs; CMP No.13183 of 2024 is closed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.R.P.No.2514 of 2024 (under Article 227, Constitution of India), High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided 29.07.2025 (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ, authoring the order, with Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.): Petitioners Rajalakshmi Jawahar and G.Jawahar challenged the order dated 02.05.2024 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in O.A.No.252 of 2019, whereby the respondent bank's secured-creditor recovery claim (Rs.11,41,78,900.70 with future contractual interest @ 13.50% per annum simple, the Tribunal having invoked RDB Act, 1993, Section 19 (20) & (25)) had been allowed. The Court found the impugned order apparently nonspeaking, mechanical and passed without application of mind to the various defences raised by the petitioners — a factual position conceded by the respondent bank's counsel, who was unable to support the order. The petition was accordingly allowed: the Tribunal's order was set aside and the case remanded for consideration afresh in accordance with law, to be decided within an outer limit of two months, with an express statement that nothing was expressed on the merits, no order as to costs, and closure of CMP No.13183 of 2024.

¶1

C.R.P.No.2514 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.2514 of 2024

¶9

Rajalakshmi Jawahar

¶10

G.Jawahar .. Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

City Union Bank Ltd. With its administrative Office at 24-B, Gandhi Nagar Kumbakonam 612 001 Branch at 27-30, Sarojini Street Ramnagar, Coimbatore 641 009.

¶13

.. Respondent

¶14

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.252 of 2019 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.Pandiane Kailash For M/s. Aiyar and Dolia

¶16

For Respondent : M/s.K.R.Ananda Gomathy

¶17

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.No.2514 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

heard finally.

¶24

The order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.252 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 order and has not taken into consideration any of the grounds raised by the petitioners in their defence and the original application 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.

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P.No.2514 of 2024

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent would concede to this factual position placed on record and is unable to support the impugned order.

¶29

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

¶30

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% 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.

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

C.R.P.No.2514 of 2024

¶36

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

¶37

a. from the Defendants personally, jointly and severally to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.11,41,78,900.70 with future contractual interest @ 13.50% per annum (simple rate) as ordered by this Tribunal towards OSOD Limit, from the date of Application, to till the date of realization, failing which:

¶38

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.11,41,78,900.70 with future contractual interest @ 13.50% per annum (Simple rate) as ordered by this Tribunal towards OSOD Limit, from the date of Application, to till the date of realization, with Costs of this OA.”

¶39

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.

¶40

Since the respondent has conceded to the aforesaid position, this petition stands allowed. The order passed by the

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶42

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

¶43

C.R.P.No.2514 of 2024

¶44

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.13183 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

¶49

The Debts Recovery Tribunal Coimbatore.

¶50

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶51