Appeal against an order allowing attachment of schedule property before judgment. The underlying application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed due to excessive delay. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.
The application to condone the delay in filing the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 15th day of July, 2025
PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
CHAIRPERSON
AIR 1912/2024
(Arising out of IA No.1145/2022 IN OA No.474/2019 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)
Between
1. M/s. Sixth Sense Robotics and Automations Pvt. Ltd., No.3E, K.S.R. Nagar, M.T.H. Road, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053.
2. Mr. J. Christuraj Chandru, S/o A. James, No. 629, L.I.G.II, T.N.E.B., Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3. Mr. J. Paulraj, S/o. A. James, No. 630, L.I.G.II, T.N.E.B., Avadi, Chennai 600 054. …..Appellants
And
The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Mogappair Branch, Rep. by Chief Manager, PC.6, No.2/12, I Floor, Kambar Salai, Mogappair West, Chennai 600 037. …..Respondent
1
Counsel for Appellants : Ms. D. Durai Raj Counsel for Respondent : Mr. R. Kumara Raja
ORDER
This application in I.A. 242 OF 2025 is filed for condoning the delay of 336 days in filing the appeal against the order passed in I.A.No.1145 of 2022 in OA.No. 474 of 2019.
This application was filed by the Respondent/Bank for attaching the schedule property before Judgment . Aggrieved by the order of allowing the application, the present appeal is filed.
In the affidavit filed by the petitioners/appellants, it is stated that the petitioner, who is representing the case, was not in station, his mother passed away during the year 2024 and that the bundle got misplaced in his office, which are the reasons for the delay.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners/respondents submitted that as the petitioner’s mother has passed away, there was a family dispute and that these factors contributed the delay of 336 days in filing the appeal.
2
Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank opposes that till the O.A. is pending, there was no mortgage provided against the loan sanctioned. Therefore, it was necessary for the Bank to file an application to attach the property before judgment for realizing the said due .
In such circumstances, the learned Presiding Officer, after considering the merits of the case, allowed the application. The order of attachment was not passed directly but, there was a conditional order with a direction to furnish security and on failure to furnish security, the attachment order was passed.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
It is not in dispute that the claim was made not on the basis of the secured asset. It appears that the respondent/Bank has produced loan documents to make out a prima-facie case for entertaining the appeal for attaching the schedule property before judgment. The petitioners/appellants also not furnished any security to avoid attachment before judgment. Therefore, this Tribunal finds nothing wrong with the order passed in the application filed to attach the schedule property before judgment. Even otherwise, this appeal was filed out of the period of limitation. There is huge delay of 336 days in filing the appeal. The reasons stated for the delay are that the petitioners/appellants misplaced the file and out of station and also his mother was dead. These reasons are not sufficient to condone the huge delay.
3
Therefore, this Tribunal is not condoning the delay in filing the
appeal and the condone delay petition is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is rejected.
Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
[Dictated to Steno (RA), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 15th day of July, 2025]
Sd/-
(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON
4
2 issues framed by the court
whether the condonation of a delay of 336 days in filing an appeal is justified given the reasons of absence, misplaced files, and bereavement
whether the Decision-making authority made an error in allowing an application to attach schedule property before judgment
M/s. Sixth Sense Robotics and Automations Pvt. Ltd. and Others
The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Mogappair Branch (Rep. by Chief Manager)
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
