2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ
Ravina Healthcare P.Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent
WP No. 3010 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Banking - Debt Recovery
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Procedural Relief - Extension of Time - Where a conditional order of a Tribunal is practically impossible to comply with due to timing, the High Court may extend the period for deposit to ensure access to justice on merits.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted an extension of time to comply with the conditional deposit order of the DRT due to the late upload of the order.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
banking and finance
-
debt recovery
- property auction
- conditional orders
-
debt recovery
-
practice and procedure
-
judicial review
-
writ jurisdiction
- interim orders
-
writ jurisdiction
-
judicial review
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Srinath Sridevan, Ramaswamy Meyyappan
For the Respondents: Ananda Gomathy
(Order of the Court was made by R.Suresh Kumar J.)
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
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:57:35 pm )
WP No. 3010 of 2026
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.
2. Heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Ms.Ananda Gomathy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents.
3. 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.
4. Having considered the said rival submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, we are inclined to pass the following order:
(a) That Rs.2.50 Crores amount as directed by the Tribunal as a
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:57:35 pm )
WP No. 3010 of 2026
condition be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after
depositing the same within a period of two weeks, it is open to the
petitioner to approach the DRT to seek for any further orders on
merits.
(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.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.