K.Ishtalingam v. Punjab National Bank
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.12.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.14453 of 2025:
K.Ishtalingam S/o.E.Kuppusamy No.27/12, A.S.Nagar, Vandimedu, Villupuram.
Petitioner Vs 1.Punjab National Bank 2.J.Sathya W/o. Jahannathan No.264, Roja Street, KVR Nagar, Vandimedu, Villupuram 3.Jahannathan S/o.Ramalingam, No.264, Roja Street, KVR Nagar, Vandimedu, Villupuram Respondents
W.P.No.14457 of 2025:
K.Ishtalingam S/o.E.Kuppusamy No.27/12, A.S.Nagar, Vandimedu, Villupuram.
Petitioner Vs 1.Punjab National Bank 2.A.Manivannan S/o.Appasamy No.261/58, Chennai Main Road, Ganapathy Nagar, Villupuram-605 602 3.Jahannathan S/o.Ramalingam, No.264, Roja Street, KVR Nagar, Vandimedu, Villupuram Respondents PRAYER in W.P.No.14453 of 2025 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the order passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II in T.A.No.473 of 2023 dated 22.03.2024 and consequential order passed in M.A.No.2 of 2025 dated 27.03.2025 as void-ab-initio, unconstitutional, null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. PRAYER in W.P.No.14457 of 2025 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the order passed by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II in
T.A.No.660 of 2023 dated 26.03.2024 and consequential order passed in M.A.No.3 of 2025 dated 27.03.2025 as void-ab-initio, unconstitutional, null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. For Petitioner in both WPs:
Mr.R.Sreedhar For Respondents in both WPs:
Mr.J.Arun Prasad for respondent No.1 No appearance for respondent Nos.2 and 3 COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This order shall dispose of both the petitions, as there is similar question for consideration involved.
3. The first question framed by us on an earlier date of hearing was that while considering the claim of recovery by the bank in proceedings instituted under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, whether the Tribunal could direct payment of 50% of the claim of the bank even before adjudication of the same through a final order.
4. We find that, in both the cases, though prayer for setting aside the ex parte order has been accepted, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has imposed condition of payment of 50% of the claim made by the bank.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent bank could not satisfy us with reference to any provision contained in Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act that any such amount is payable as pre-deposit. The condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is completely arbitrary and not supported by any of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act.
6. In view of our answer to the first question, which we framed earlier, it is not necessary for us to decide the second question. We leave it open to be decided in the pending proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if any such objection is raised by the petitioner.
7. In the result, the impugned orders in both the cases to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the claim made in
the application by the bank are set aside. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 10.12.2025 Index :
Yes/No :
Yes/No bbr To:
Punjab National Bank
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
bbr 10.12.2025