Published: · Source checked:
DRAT Chennai reduced a payment condition from ₹30 lakh to ₹15 lakh in Thirugnanam v. Five-Star Business Finance. Crucially, its 22 October 2026 order did not promise an automatic stay on payment: the originating DRT still had to consider intervening events and decide whether protection should be granted. Order, paragraphs 8–11.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Chennai |
| Chairperson | Justice G. Chandrasekharan |
| Case | MA(SA)91/2026; I.A. 631/2026 in S.A. 205/2026 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | B. Thirugnanam, Jothi and T. Ganavigneshwar v. The Authorized Officer, Five-Star Business Finance Limited |
An interim appeal within an undecided S.A.
S.A. 205/2026 challenged a Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 10 February 2025 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The appeal was against the 24 March 2026 interim order in I.A. 631/2026, not a final adjudication of that challenge. Paragraphs 2–4.
The earlier interim direction required payment of ₹30 lakh in two instalments and provided for automatic vacation of protection on non-payment. The appellants had not paid as directed. DRAT recorded that the substantive grounds against the magistrate's order remained for the DRT; they could not be decided in an appeal confined to this interim order. Paragraphs 4 and 8.
Why the percentage argument was not the result
The appellants relied on observations attributed to the Madras High Court in a separate challenge to an appellate waiver order. They proposed a 25% calculation using ₹31,17,800. The finance company opposed this and relied on a higher demand-notice total of ₹96,23,615 including further components. Paragraphs 5–7.
Those were competing submissions. DRAT's operative response was not simply to adopt one suggested percentage calculation. It fixed ₹15 lakh, payable to the respondent financial institution within four weeks of the order, in place of the earlier ₹30 lakh. Paragraph 9.
This note does not independently restate the unreviewed High Court order, calculate a current outstanding balance or label the ₹15 lakh a final debt determination.
Payment was followed by a further stay decision
Paragraph 9 expressly leaves the DRT to decide whether stay can be granted on payment, considering events between the 24 March interim order and the matter's return. Paragraphs 10–11 partially modify the earlier direction and dispose of the appeal on that basis. Parties bear their own costs and pending applications are closed. Paragraphs 9–13.
The remaining discretion is central. A headline saying that paying ₹15 lakh restored the stay would omit the tribunal's qualification. The borrower obtained a reduced payment direction and an opportunity for renewed consideration; the main Section 14 challenge and the ultimate entitlement to interim protection remained unresolved here.
Keep three amounts and functions separate
For a practitioner, the useful exercise is to distinguish the amount claimed in the demand notice, the statutory pre-deposit question in an appeal, and the payment condition attached to discretionary interim relief. Their purposes and procedural stages are different. A submission about one should not be presented as an operative ruling about another.
The existing Jiffy Realtors case note on Section 18 appellate pre-deposit concerns that separate appellate threshold. It does not supply the reason for this ₹15-lakh interim direction.
Questions about the modification
Did the ₹15 lakh become a standard stay requirement?
No. It was the amount fixed in this particular interim appeal, with a further DRT decision expressly preserved.
Did DRAT decide the Section 14 order was unlawful?
No. Paragraph 8 leaves those substantive grounds for the DRT in the pending S.A. Order, paragraphs 8–11.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 22 October 2026, paragraphs 2–13; official 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.