The Madras High Court has directed Indian Bank to hand over possession of an auctioned property to the successful bidder within 15 days, holding that once full consideration is paid and a sale certificate is issued, the purchaser is entitled to immediate possession of the secured asset.

Case Title: Chapa Asish v. Union of India & Others?

Neutral Citation: W.P. No. 15557 of 2025

Bench

Hon’ble Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan?

Issue of Law 

Whether the petitioner, a successful auction purchaser in the bank’s recovery auction, was entitled to immediate possession of the secured asset after issuance of a sale certificate, when the bank and borrowers failed to hand over the property despite prior orders.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, Chapa Asish, had emerged as the successful bidder in auction proceedings held by Indian Bank. He paid the entire sale consideration, and a sale certificate was issued in his favour confirming the purchase. Despite this, physical possession of the secured property was not delivered by the respondents. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, had, by an order dated 19.09.2024, directed delivery of possession to the bank. The borrower filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) challenging the CJM’s order, but the DRT dismissed the borrower’s plea on 10.02.2025. The petitioner’s subsequent representation dated 28.02.2025 requesting handover of keys and possession remained unaddressed, leading him to file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to comply and deliver possession.?

Judgment

The Court recorded that the petitioner had paid the full consideration and obtained the sale certificate, but still had not been given possession. The Bench noted that the CJM had already directed delivery of possession and the DRT had dismissed the borrower’s challenge, meaning no bar existed to handing over the property. The Court afforded an opportunity for private respondents to show any interim order restraining delivery but found that no such order existed. Consequently, the Bench held that there was no legal impediment to giving possession of the property to the petitioner and issued the following directions:

• The seventh respondent (Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Stressed Assets Management Branch) was directed to hand over possession of the property purchased by the petitioner with the help of local police.
• This must be done within 15 days from the date of production of the Court’s order to the seventh respondent’s office.
• The Station House Officer of the local police station was directed to provide necessary protection and ensure peaceful physical delivery of the property to the petitioner.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs. The Court also ruled that the miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.17593 of 2025) filed to permit multiple petitioners joining in a single writ was allowed, subject to payment of separate court fees within two weeks. Other interim applications were closed.?

Subsequent Development

The judgment explicitly required compliance within 15 days and payment of court fees within two weeks for joint filings. No mention of appeal, review, or contempt proceedings is recorded in the order or attached data.?

To get access of the full judgment, click here