Published: · Source checked:
DRAT Chennai required a fresh merits hearing in Central Bank of India v. A.R.A. Fuel Station after the bank's objections had not been filed before DRT. The 22 October 2026 order also noted a later possession notice that had not been challenged. The result was remand, not final approval of the bank's NPA classification or enforcement. Order, paragraphs 2–8.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Chennai |
| Chairperson | Justice G. Chandrasekharan |
| Case | RA(SA)72/2026; S.A. 261/2024 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | The Authorized Officer, Central Bank of India v. M/s A.R.A. Fuel Station |
How the missing objections affected the first decision
S.A. 261/2024 challenged a possession notice dated 6 May 2024. DRT-II, Karnataka at Bengaluru allowed that application on 30 January 2026. The appellate order explains that objections had not been filed and that an allegation concerning NPA classification under RBI guidelines had been treated as uncontroverted. Paragraphs 1–3.
Other objections in the S.A. concerned repayment opportunities, settlement time and payments after the demand notice. The appeal records the bank's account of the DRT's reasoning on these matters. It does not provide a fresh adjudication by DRAT of every repayment entry or the validity of the RBI-guideline objection.
Why the second possession notice mattered
The bank stated that, after the first possession notice, payments were made and it took no further steps on that notice. It then issued a fresh possession notice dated 25 May 2024 when default continued. It relied on service, affixture and publication material for the notices. DRAT's own analysis noted that the later notice had not been challenged. Paragraphs 4 and 6.
This created a concrete issue for the merits hearing: which measure was under challenge, what had happened to the earlier measure, and how did the relief sought relate to the later one? A case note that merely says the bank won would lose this procedural distinction.
The respondent had been given opportunities to argue the appeal but did not appear on the date fixed after a conditional adjournment. That explains the appellate hearing posture; it does not turn every bank submission into an independently determined fact about the debt. Paragraph 5.
The operative direction
DRAT set aside the DRT order and sent the matter back so the bank could file objections and the S.A. could be disposed of on its merits and in accordance with law. It directed disposal within three months from receipt of a copy of the appellate order. That trigger is receipt, not the date of this article or necessarily the date of pronouncement. Paragraphs 7–10.
The order therefore restored a contested adjudication. It did not hold that the borrowers' NPA objection was false, declare the loan balance, or finally validate both notices. Costs remained with each party and pending interlocutory applications were closed.
Practical use for the case file
A possession-dispute chronology should separately identify each notice, the payments said to follow it, the further action taken on that notice and the relief pleaded against it. If the bank relies on a later notice, counsel should show the tribunal how that document changes the controversy, rather than treating all notices as interchangeable.
The pleading record also matters. A party relying on a disputed regulatory allegation should identify the allegation and evidence; the opposing party should state its answer. This order illustrates the consequence of returning a matter for that contest, rather than supplying a general rule that every failure to file objections requires remand.
Questions about the outcome
Did DRAT decide the NPA classification was valid?
No. It remanded for objections and a merits decision. The alleged RBI-guideline breach remained part of the dispute to be adjudicated.
Did the three-month period run from pronouncement?
The direction is expressly tied to receipt of a copy of the order. The actual compliance calculation needs that receipt record. Paragraph 7.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 22 October 2026, paragraphs 1–10, original PDF text. The analysis reports that decision as delivered. Primary source and statutory references were checked on 1 November 2026; later treatment has not been exhaustively established. No absence of an appeal, stay, variation or subsequent compliance is asserted.