Dismissed

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sri.Thomas Chacko

DRAT6 Nov 2025MISC APPEAL/52/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank filed appeals challenging the DRT's order lifting attachment over properties that were allegedly sold by a borrower before the attachment. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the borrower's attempt to defeat attachment via transfer did not invalidate the order and no lien existed.

What did the court decide?

Appeals filed by the Bank against the lifting of attachment orders are dismissed; attaching orders are confirmed.

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sri.Thomas Chacko — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 6^th of November 2025

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA 52/2013 & MA 53/2013

¶6

(Arising out of IA 2566/2012 & IA 3506/2012 in OA 195/2006 on the file of DRT, Ernakulam)

Between

1. MA 52/2013:

And

Sri. Thomas Chacko, S/o Chacko Korathara House, Kannady PO, Alapuzha District, Kerala, Pin 688 504. …..Respondent

¶12

¶13

2. MA 53/2013:

¶14

The Federal Bank Ltd., Having its registered office at P.B.No. 103, Federal Towers, Aluva -683 101, Kerala State, A comp0any incorporated under the Companies Act, having one of its Branches at Kavalam, Alapuzha District, Kerala And also at Asset Recovery Branch, 57 Royapettah High Road, Royapettah (PO), Chennai 600 014, Rep. by its Chief Manager. …Appellant And Sri Jossy Chacko, S/o Late KC Chacko, Kaithamangalam House, Chethackal Desom, Ranni Taluk, Pathnamthitta District, Kerala. …..Respondent Counsel for Appellant/s : M/s. S. Sathiyanarayanan Counsel for Respondent (in MA 52/2013) : Mr. K.C. Sudheer Counsel for Respondent (in MA 53/2013) : Set exparte

¶15

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

These Appeals in MA 52/2013 and MA 53/2013 have been filed against a common order passed in IA 2566/2012 and IA 3506/2012 filed in OA 195/2006, by DRT, Ernakulam.

¶18

By the said Applications, the Petitioner therein prayed for raising the attachment order passed in IA 2015/2012, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam allowed both the Applications and set aside the order of attachment passed in IA 2015/2012. Therefore, these Appeals are filed by the Appellant Bank.

¶19

Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Appellant filed OA No. 195/2006 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,07,37,571/- with future interest. The first Defendant therein is a Firm and Defendants 2 and 3 are its partners and borrowers along with the Firm. Respondent No.4 was a co-applicant and mortgagor of the secured asset shown in Schedule ‘C’ and ‘D’ to the OA. Schedule ‘C’ and ‘D’ of secured assets had been sold on 24.09.2007 for Rs.27,51,500/- The stock in trade, shown in Schedule ‘B’ had also been sold in SARFAESI proceedings on 15.04.2008 for Rs.28 Lakhs. There is still amount due and payable by the Defendants.

¶20

¶21

It is further submitted that the Bank had also initiated OA 276/2011 in respect of another loan in which the Defendant No.2 was a party. The 2^nd Defendant’s property was offered as security for the said loan. Since huge amount remains to be recovered in OA 195/2006, the Appellant Bank filed IA 2015/2012 for attaching the property shown in the Schedule to OA. In the said IA, conditional order for attachment was passed in IA 2015/2012 on 14.08.2012. As against the said order, the 2^nd Defendant in OA filed IA 2566/2012 and one Jossy Chacko, filed IA 3506/2012 for raising the attachment order passed in IA 2015/2012. As already stated, these Applications are allowed leading to filing of these Appeals.

¶22

Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank further submitted that

¶23

even prior to order of attachment passed in IA 2015/2012 on 14.08.2012, the property was sold on 12.07.2012, to the relative of Defendant No.2, who in turn sold it to Jossy Chacko.

¶24

IA No. 2566/2012 was filed by the applicant/ respondent

¶25

Thomas Chacko for lifting the order of attachment passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam in the application filed by the appellant/Bank in IA 2015/2012 for attaching the subject property.

¶26

¶27

The case of the respondent- Thomas Chacko (MA

¶28

52/2013) is that the conditional order of attachment was passed on 14/08/2012. Prior to that, he transferred his property to Smt.Jismol Joseph on 12/07/2012 vide sale deed No.2018/2012. Mrs. Jismol Joseph had transferred this property along with other properties to Sri. Jossi Chacko, the respondent in other case vide sale deed No.2132/2012. Some other properties were also transferred on the same date by 5 other members of the family through a combined sale deed dated 23/07/2012. Therefore, the conditional order of attachment is per-se illegal for the reason that the respondent was not the owner of the property on the date of order of attachment.

¶29

It is further submitted that the property was sold in pursuant to an order dated 26/06/2012 by the Tribunal in IA No. 1625/2012 in OA 276/2011. This property was offered as security by the respondent at the time of execution of guarantee to the subject matter of OA 276/2011. Therefore, this property cannot be used for realisation of amount in OA 195/2006.

¶30

The case of the respondent, Sri. Jossi Chacko, the

¶31

applicant in IA 3520/2012 is that he is the owner of the property to an extent of 105/71 Ares comprised in re-survey No.157/ 1 to 6 and

¶32

160/1 of Kunnumma Village, Kattanadu Taluk, Alapuzha District

¶33

¶34

by virtue of sale deed No.2132/2012, dated 23/07/2012. It includes 32.40 Ares comprised in re-survey No.157/5 belongs to Thomas Chacko i.e. the petition scheduled property. These properties were not mortgaged and is free from all encumbrances.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank further submitted that there is a general lien on the property attached. Thomas Chacko sold the property to his close relative and he inturn sold the property to Jossi Chocko on 12.07.2012. The sale had happened only with a view to defeat the Bank in claiming the amount determined in OA 195/2006 disputing that the bank would not proceed against this property. Thus, he submitted that the sale is not valid and these properties are liable for attachment for realising the debt due to the Bank.

¶36

No representation for the respondent despite this matter is heard for over a period of six months. This appeal is

¶37

pending from 2013. Therefore, this Tribunal proceeds to dispose this appeal.

¶38

From the submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶39

appellant- Bank and the records produced, OA 195/2006 was filed by

¶40

¶41

the appellant/Bank against the Thomas Chacko and three others. When the said OA was pending, the appellant/ Bank filed IA 2015/2012 for attaching the properties scheduled in the petition before judgment. The said application was allowed. Against the order of allowing the application, the defendant/respondent Thomas Chacko and the purchaser Jossi Chacko filed IAs 2566/2012 and 3506/2012 for raising the attachment order passed in IA 2015/2012. The said IAs were allowed. Aggrieved against the order of allowing those two IAs 2566/2012 and 3506/2012, these appeals are filed.

¶42

It is not in dispute that no security interest was created on the property attached. The attachment order was passed only on 14.08.2012, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Even prior to passing of the order of attachment, the property attached was sold to close relative of defendant/respondent Thomas Chacko. He inturn sold the property to the defendant/respondent Jossi Chacko on 12.07.20212. Only after the sale of the property, the attachment order was passed on 14.08.2012. On the date of passing the attachment order, Thomas Chacko, the owner of the property was no more. Therefore, the attachment order passed is explicitly wrong and cannot be sustained.

¶43

¶44

The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶45

appellant-Bank that there is general lien over the property cannot be accepted on the ground that there is no lien exists in this case either express or implied. Be that as it may, the borrower Thomas Chacko anticipating that his property would be attached, he transferred the same to other party, that would not be the ground for raising the attachment order.

¶46

In this view of this matter, this Tribunal finds that these two appeals have no merits either on facts or on law and therefore, these two appeals are dismissed confirming the Common order dated 12.2.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, in IA 2566/2012 & IA 3506/2012 in OA 195/2006.

¶47

Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶48

Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

(Dictated to (ra). Steno, in open Court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this 6^th day of November 2025)

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN)

¶52

CHAIRPERSON

¶53

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sri.Thomas Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sri.Thomas Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uco Bank versus Femina Rajalakshmi

Uco Bank versus Femina Rajalakshmi

Uco Bank versus Digital Graphix

Mr Umapathi Sankar versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

N Kavitha and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda and Anr.

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sri.Jossy Chacko