Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 07-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: K. Deivendran (along with other petitioners) filed Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.30953‑30954/2026 challenging the final judgment and order dated 27‑07‑2026 passed by the Madras High Court in WP Nos.13297/2024 and 18164/2024.
  • Respondent: The Authorized Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.
  • The petitions sought relief against the High Court’s decision; the matter was heard by a two‑judge bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
  • Counsel for the petitioners included Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, Adv. Sivaganam Karhtikeyan, and AOR B. Karunakaran. Counsel for the respondent comprised Adv. K. S. Mahadevan, Adv. Swati Bansal, Adv. Rangarajan R., Adv. Aravind Gopinathan, and AOR Rajesh Kumar.

Order Details

1. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Madras High Court order; consequently, the special leave petitions stand disposed of.

2. Senior Counsel Gagan Gupta informed the Court that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.80,00,000 (Rupees Eighty Lakhs) after an order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

3. The petitioner is permitted to file the appropriate application before the DRAT to deposit 25% of the amount due, in accordance with Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

4. The deadline for depositing the amount is extended by six weeks from the date of this order.

5. The petitioner may file a restoration application concerning the appeal only after the DRAT quantifies the amount and the required deposit is made.

6. Any pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court’s judgment, dismissed the special leave petitions, confirmed the petitioner’s Rs.80 lakhs deposit, granted a six‑week extension for further deposit under the Securitisation Act, and conditioned any restoration filing on the DRAT’s quantification and deposit.

Topics: Banking Litigation, Debt Recovery