logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6711 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : C.R.P. No. 5358 of 2026 & C.M.P. No. 23228 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
Parties : M.S.K. Rameshraj & Others Versus Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by its General Manager, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: S.R. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel, G. Selvi George, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----------
Date of Judgment : 27-09-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 05.08.2026 passed in I.A.No.1480 of 2025 in S.A.No.507 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-III at Chennai.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.08.2026 passed in I.A.No.1480 of 2025, in S.A.No.507 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai, dismissing the interim application seeking to amend the prayer.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submitted that though petitioners are having efficacious remedy before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in view of the Circular dated 15.07.2026 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, they have approached this Court by filing the above petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court today, 27.08.2026, in W.P.No.34863 of 2026, staying the said Circular dated 15.07.2026 and in view of the fact that it would not attract the deposit under Section 18(3) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, they may be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18(1) of the Act. He also requested that the time spent before this Court in prosecuting this case may be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

4. In view of the fact that the Circular dated 15.07.2026 has been stayed by this Court, this petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty. Petitioners will be entitled to the exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting these cases, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

5. The civil revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal