IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED WP No. 1679 of 2026 and CMP Nos.1735, 1739, 1742 of 2026 Dr.Rajeshwari ..Petitioner(s)

Vs M/s.PNB Houing Finance Limited, Through its Authorised Officer, Mr.R.Kumaresan (aged 34 Years), S/o. S.Rajendiran, Having its Branch Office at No.1112, Raja Plaza, 02^nd Floor, Avinashi Road, (Near Lakshmi Mills), Coimbatore 641 037.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in MA (SA) No.4 of 2024 order dated 07.01.2026 is quash the same as an illegal.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Rajendraprasad

ORDER

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

This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, dated 07.01.2026 made in MA. (SA) No.4 of 2024, arising out of IA.No.2656 of 2023 in S.A.(NDN).No.1204 of 2023 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner is the borrower and owner of the secured property, which has been mortgaged as a secured asset to the respondent/Bank. Due to the default of repaying the loan, SARFAESI proceedings were initiated, ultimately, Section 14 order has been passed under the Scrutinisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, 1In short, hereinafter referred as “the Act of 2002”

3. At that juncture, the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, where some conditional order has been passed and he was unable to comply with the order. Again, when an appeal was filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002, a waiver application was also filed. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal passed an order permitting the petitioner to pay 25% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor, that comes to Rs.11,30,000/-, which was paid by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, for want of Presiding Officer could not function for some time. Therefore, he was not able to move any stay petition before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Hence, he once again approached this Court, seeking for a writ of mandamus. When that writ of mandamus was decided by a Division Bench of this Court, a conditional order was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, which also has been paid by the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the Chairperson has been appointed, has taken up the MA.(SA) No.4 of 2024 filed by the petitioner and decided it through the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, whereby, the matter was remitted back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, to rehear the matter and decide the same on merits, however, on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, as a condition precedent for taking up of his proceedings by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Though it is only a remand order, where there has been a condition fixed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, since the petitioner already paid Rs.11,30,000/- and Rs.10,00,000, as a conditions precedent ordered by the Court, totalling Rs.21,30,000/-, we deem it appropriate to modify the order which is impugned herein passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

6. This is because the total due was Rs.52,52,405.46 as on 04.08.2023, out of which, Rs.21,30,000/- has already been paid. Now, if Rs.10,00,000/- more is paid, since the substantial due is paid by the petitioner, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore can take up the proceedings as directed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal through the impugned order and decide th