Ravina Healthcare P.Ltd Vs The Authorised Officer

Writ Petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records in Order dated 27.01.2026 in I.A. No.183 of 2026 in S.A. No.57 of 2026 on the file of Honble DRT-III, Chennai and quash the same as arbitrary unreasonable and pass

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan For Respondent : Ms.Ananda Gomathy Standing Counsel

¶22

Order

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by R.Suresh Kumar J.)

¶24

The present petitioner being a borrower of the respondent bank had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal [in short, ‘the DRT’] to stall the proposed auction sale of the bank, which was slated to be conducted on 28.01.2026. The necessary petition was filed on 19.01.2026, which was taken up for hearing on 27.01.2026, where a conditional order was passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2.50 Crorse on or before 28.01.2026 at 10.30 a.m. That order itself was uploaded in the website of the Tribunal only at 8.00 p.m on 27.01.2026, therefore being an unworkable order, as there has been no breathing time to the petitioner even to mobilise the fund of Rs.2.50 Crores, even if willing to make it, the petitioner could not have

¶25

Page2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 3010 of 2026

¶28

mobilized and deposited the sum of Rs.2.50 Crores. Therefore, aggrieved over the said order passed by the Tribunal dated 27.01.2026, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶29

Heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Ananda Gomathy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that due is more than Rs.22 Crores, out of which only 10% amount has been directed to be paid as per the conditional order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned herein. Even that could not be complied with by the petitioner, and therefore no indulgence can be shown. She would also submit that on the date of auction i.e., on 28.01.2026, either because of the stay order granted by the Tribunal or otherwise, the sale could not be effected and therefore, at this juncture, the respondent bank may be permitted to proceed further to go ahead with the fresh auction notice and go for auction of the property in question, she contended.

¶31

Having considered the said rival submissions made by the learned

¶32

counsel for the parties, we are inclined to pass the following order:

¶33

(a) That Rs.2.50 Crores amount as directed by the Tribunal as a

¶34

Page3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 3010 of 2026

¶37

condition be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two

¶38

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after

¶39

depositing the same within a period of two weeks, it is open to the

¶40

petitioner to approach the DRT to seek for any further orders on merits.

¶41

(b) It is also open to the respondent bank to proceed with the auction afresh, which is subject to the order to be passed by the Tribunal on the application to be moved in this regard by the petitioner by virtue of the liberty that has been given now in this order.

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

(R.S.K.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 29-01-2026

¶44

Index: Yes/No

¶45

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶46

mp

¶47

Note: Issue order copy by 02.02.2026

¶48

__________ Page4 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

WP No. 3010 of 2026

¶51

To

¶52

The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, Chennai, No.168, Second Floor, Linghi Chetty Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai-600 001, Tamil Nadu, India,

¶53