The court held that a conditional order requiring a large deposit is unworkable if the timeline provided does not allow the party sufficient time to mobilize funds, justifying an extension of the payment deadline.

(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.