BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.A.(MD)No.2482 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.14285, 16621 & 17119 of 2025

1.The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Indian Bank, 2nd Floor, Jenni Plaza, Cantonment, Trichy, Trichy District.

2.The Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Sundar Nagar, Trichy.

All the above 1 & 2 are represented by the Authorised Officer, Sundar Nagar Branch, Trichy. ... Appellants -vs-

1.D.Balan

2.The Chairman / Managing Director, Head Office, Indian Bank, No.66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent Act, praying to praying to set aside the order dated 30.07.2025 made in W.P. (MD)No.10056 of 2024, on the file of this Court and allow this Writ Appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.P.N.Satagopan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Mahendran For Respondent No.2 : No appearance

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.] Appeal filed by the Bank being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.10056 of 2024 dated 30.07.2025. 2.It is a pathetic case of an auction purchaser who had parted away a sum of Rs.56,25,000/- pursuant to the auction notice published by the appellants herein. The subject matter is the property given as security by a borrower from the appellant bank and for its default, property was brought to sale, in which the first respondent has participated and being the successful bidder he has paid the entire bid amount of Rs.56,25,000/- and also obtained sale certificate, but the bank had failed to deliver the possession of the property to the auction purchaser citing the pendency of DRT proceedings in S.A.No.349 of 2016.

3.In the said circumstances, the first respondent has approached this Court seeking for Mandamus directing the respondent to hand over physical possession of the property or to refund the sale amount along with commercial interest and compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The learned Single Judge having considered the relief sought in the Writ Petition and the defence taken by the bank had allowed the Writ Petition and passed the following order:

“2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to hand over physical possession of property admeasuring 2700 Sq.Ft with building constructed thereon bearing Door No.12, in Plot No. 107, situated at Survey No. 17/2, 17/8, 17/9, 17/10, 17/11, 17/12, 17/13, 17/14, 18/4, 19/1, 19/2, 19/3 and 19/4 (more particularly at S.No. 19/2), Indira Nagar, K.Saathanur Village, Trichy Corporation, Trichy East Taluk, Trichy Revenue District, K.Saathaur SRO, Trichy Registration District to the petitioner immediately or to refund the amount of Rs.56,25,000/- along with commercial interest calculated from the date of sale with compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on the basis of representation made by this petitioner, dated 29.09.2023.

3. It appears that the petitioner has purchased the property in an auction conducted before the DRT. The property belonged to a borrower, who had defaulted. The petitioner has paid Rs.56,25,000/- and has thus purchased the property 20.04.2016. Thereafter, a sale certificate was also issued to the petitioner on 03.06.2016, which has been registered. However, the petitioner has not been able to take the possession of the property.

4. It appears that the borrower's brother has also incidentally filed a S.A.No.349 of 2016 under the provision of SARFAESI Act 2002 read with the relevant rules, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the fourth respondent. It appears that petitioner has not appeared and therefore, petitioner has also been set ex-parte in S.A.No.349 of 2016.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that since the case is pending in S.A.No.349 of 2016 and therefore, the respondents Bank is neither in a position to give a clear possession of the property nor