M/s. Veremax Technologie Services Limited, Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

M/s. Veremax Technologie Services Limited, Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed with modification of only the pre-deposit timelines fixed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal: 15% of the amount due to be deposited within seven days (with adjustment of amounts already paid) and a further 20% to be paid within 15 days thereafter; the DRT order otherwise left undisturbed with all stated consequences following; W.M.P.No.55890 of 2025 allowed, other interim applications closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned interim order dated 16.12.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai (in I.A. No. 2160 of 2025 in S.A. No. 695 of 2025), imposing a pre-deposit of 15% of the amount due (approximately Rs.4.50 crore) within 48 hours, is arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Subject to the modification of the payment timelines, the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal was not interfered with and all consequences stated therein were to follow; the prayer to quash the interim order was therefore not accepted.

Ratio / Principle

The pre-deposit condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was modified only as to timing: 15% of the amount due shall be deposited (after adjusting any amount already paid) within seven days, and a further 20% of the amount due shall be paid within 15 days thereafter.

Key takeaways

Although an alternative remedy of appeal existed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the writ petition was entertained and dealt with as one essentially seeking breathing time to make payment arrangements.obiter¶35
W.M.P.No.55890 of 2025 seeking permission to join together and file a single writ petition was allowed as separate court fee had been paid, and consequently the other interim applications were closed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J.), W.P.No.49982 of 2025, decided 19.12.2025 — Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorari to quash the interim order dated 16.12.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai in I.A. No. 2160 of 2025 in S.A. No. 695 of 2025, whereby stay was granted subject to deposit of 15% of the amount due (approx. Rs.4.50 crore, against outstanding above Rs.30.00 crore) within 48 hours. Held: although an alternative remedy of appeal lay before the Tribunal, the petition was treated as one seeking breathing time for payment; the condition was modified only as to timing — 15% of the amount due to be deposited (after adjusting amounts already paid) within seven days, and a further 20% of the amount due within 15 days thereafter; the DRT's order was otherwise not interfered with and all consequences stated therein were to follow. W.M.P.No.55890 of 2025 (joint filing) allowed; other interim applications closed; no costs.

W.P.No.49982 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.12.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

W.P.No.49982 of 2025 & W.M.P.Nos.55890, 55892 & 55893 of 2025

M/s. Veremax Technologie Services Limited

rep. by its Authorised Signatory Poonamallee Road, Kilpauk Chennai - 600 010.

T.R.M. Venkatesh,

New No.205, Old No.156, Doshi Towers Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk Chennai - 600 033.

Also at- Plot No.33, 21st Street, 6th Avenue Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.

Thulasimani Marimuthu

No.30/31, Ulavan Street, Ulavan Nagar, NGGO Colony, Erode - 638 011 Also at- No.60B, Papathikadu - II, Veeranpanchatiram, Erode - 638 004.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

State Bank of India rep. by its Authorised Officer Stressed Asset Management Branch Red Cross Building No.32, Red Cross Road, Egmore Chennai - 600 008.

Respondent(s)

Page 1 of 6

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

W.P.No.49982 of 2025

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned interim order dated 16.12.2025 passed in I.A. No. 2160 of 2025 in S.A. No. 695 of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai and quash the same as arbitrary and unreasonable.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Srinath Sridevan Senior Counsel For Mr.Pawan Jhabakh For Respondent(s): Mr.M.L.Ganesh (through Video Conferencing) And Mr.S.Arun Kumar

ORDER

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

It appears that aggrieved by onerous condition of pre-deposit, petitioners have approached the writ Court without taking recourse to remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners would submit that

though the Debts Recovery Tribunal, upon consideration of prima

Page 2 of 6

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

W.P.No.49982 of 2025

facie

facie case, was satisfied that case for stay was made out, onerous condition of deposit of 15% of the amount, which comes to Rs.4.50 crore, within 48 hours was imposed, which is impossible to be complied with and if some reasonable time is given, petitioners would be depositing that amount.

On caveat, learned counsel for bank opposes and submits that petitioners, as persons of ordinary prudence, ought to have known that if any interim order is granted in their favour, they will be required to deposit huge amount, because, the outstanding amount towards re-payment of bank loan is more than Rs.30.00 crore. Therefore, if two days time has been given to petitioners to deposit 15% of the outstanding amount, which is approximately Rs.4.50 crore, it cannot be said to be an onerous condition which could not be complied with.

After hearing learned counsel for parties, we find that even though there is an alternative remedy of appeal, petitioners have come to this Court seeking breathing time to make arrangements

___________ Page 3 of 6_

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

W.P.No.49982 of 2025

for payment of 15% of the amount, which is approximately Rs.4.50 crore. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that if seven days time is granted, petitioners will deposit that amount with adjustment of amount already deposited and the balance amount, as directed, will also be paid within 15 days thereafter.

Having considered the submission, we are inclined to dispose of the petition with a slight modification of the condition imposed by Debts Recovery Tribunal that 15% of the amount due shall be deposited (after adjusting amount if any paid) within seven days from today. 20% of the amount due shall be paid within 15 days thereafter.

Subject to this modification with regard to the period during which payments have to be made, the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not interfered with and all consequences stated therein shall follow.

Petition is disposed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________ Page 4 of 6_

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

W.P.No.49982 of 2025

W.M.P.No.55890 of 2025 seeking permission to join together and

file a single writ petition is ordered as separate court fee has been

paid. Consequently, other interim applications are closed.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 19.12.2025

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

kpl

To

State Bank of India rep. by its Authorised Officer Stressed Asset Management Branch Red Cross Building No.32, Red Cross Road, Egmore Chennai - 600 008.

___________ Page 5 of 6_

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

W.P.No.49982 of 2025

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(kpl)

W.P.No.49982 of 2025

19.12.2025

___________ Page 6 of 6_

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