M/S.Saravana Housing Pvt.Ltd., v. The Authorised Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN M/s.Saravana Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director C.Madhavan Having its registered office at No.15 Giri Road, T.Nagar Chennai 600017.

Petitioner Vs 1.The Authorised Officer State Bank of India SME Branch No.65 A GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600032.

2.Kabilan Adhi S/o.Munuadhi No.8 Vadivel Street West Tambaram Chennai 600045.

Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to dispose the securitization application in R.A.S.A.No.20 of 2025 within the stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner:

Mr.M.Suresh Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr.A.B.Rajasekaran

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to dispose of RA (SA) No.20 of 2025, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2. The appeal is of the year 2025 and no reason has been stated by the petitioner as to why the matter is kept pending. Any direction to expedite a specific case out of turn would disrupt the board of the Tribunal. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance that distinguishes its case from other litigants waiting in queue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should prioritize cases based on their seniority, nature of urgency and statutory mandate. It is empowered to regulate its procedure and accelerate hearings if a

genuine case of urgency is made out. Issuing blanket direction for quick disposal would put undue pressure on the Tribunal and, consequently, the persons who approached the Tribunal earlier would be left at a disadvantaged position.

3. We are, therefore, not inclined to give such a direction to decide the case within a time frame. However, the petitioner would get liberty to file appropriate application before the Tribunal to expedite the hearing.

4. With this liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 09.06.2026 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No bbr

To:

The Authorised Officer State Bank of India SME Branch No.65 A GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600032.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

bbr 09.06.2026