Allowed

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Srinivasa Garment Private Limited

DRAT18 Jun 2025TRANSFER PETITION/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed a transfer petition to move Securitization Application SA 265/2025 from DRT, Chennai to DRT, Coimbatore. The transfer ensures joint disposal with SA 338/2025, as both arise from identical facts and documents involving loans executed and registered in Coimbatore.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Securitization Application SA 265/2025 from DRT, Chennai to DRT, Coimbatore for joint disposal with SA 338/2025. Each party to bear own costs.

Aditya Birla Capital Limited versus Srinivasa Garment… — Service and Employment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 18^th Day of June, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

TP 2/2025

¶5

(Arising out of SA 265/2025 on the file of DRT – III, Chennai)

¶6

Between

¶7

Aditya Birla Capital Limited (Formerly Aditya Birla Finance Limited) Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Mr.V.Thiyagarajan, Door No.739, 2^nd Floor, Upstairs of Nissan Showroom, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. …Appellant

¶8

And

¶9

M/s. Srinivasa Garment Private Limited No.90, Rangavilas Mill Lane, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004 …..Respondent

¶10

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. B.Siva Kollapan Counsel for respondent : M/s. Aiyar & Dolia

¶11

ORDER

¶12

1. This appeal is filed under Section 17-A (2) of RDB Act read with Section 17(7) of SARFAESI Act seeking to transfer Securitization Application in SA 265/2025 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal – III, Chennai to be heard along with SA 338/2025 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

¶13

Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that in respect of the loan availed by the respondent, a demand notice dated 03.12.2024 was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon the respondent and guarantor to repay the outstanding due amount of Rs.16,48,93,762.02p. Properties in

¶14

¶15

Coimbatore and Chennai were mortgaged for the loan. In respect of the properties in Coimbatore, possession notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 24.02.2025 and in respect of the property in Chennai, possession notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 21.02.2025. The respondent filed SA 338/2025 before the DRT, Coimbatore challenging the possession notice dated 24.02.2025 and filed SA 265/2025 before DRT – III, Chennai challenging the possession notice dated 21.02.2025. It is his further submission that both the SAs are founded on identical facts, identical documents and raise overlapping issues and grounds of challenge. It is further submitted that,

¶16

a. The registered office of the respondent is located within the jurisdiction of DRT, Coimbatore.

¶17

b. All loan documents were executed at Coimbatore.

¶18

c. The possession notices dated 21.02.2025 (Chennai Property) and 24.02.2025 (Coimbatore properties) were both issued pursuant to a common Demand notice dated 03.12.2024.

¶19

d. The cause of action has substantially and wholly arisen within the jurisdiction of the DRT, Coimbatore,

¶20

e. The SA before DRT, Coimbatore was filed prior in time and pleadings are already completed and the matter is still pending on the file of DRT, Coimbatore.

¶21

In the said circumstances, Ld. Counsel for petitioner prays for transfer of SA 265/2025 on the file of DRT – III, Chennai to DRT, Coimbatore.

¶22

Learned Counsel for respondent has no serious objections for allowing this transfer application.

¶23

¶24

In the light of the facts elucidated above, it is seen that in respect of the loan availed Section 13(2) Demand Notice was given. It is followed by two different possession notices for the properties in Coimbatore and Chennai. Challenging the possession notices, SAs had been filed in DRT, Coimbatore and DRT, Chennai. It is also seen from the other facts that the registered office of the respondent bank is situated within the jurisdiction of DRT, Coimbatore, all the loan documents are executed in Coimbatore, the cause of action has substantially and wholly arisen within the jurisdiction of DRT, Coimbatore and also the SA 338/2025 was filed prior in time.

¶25

In the said circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that it is necessary that both the SAs i.e., SA 338/2025 and SA 265/2025 should be tried and disposed by the same Learned Presiding Officer to avoid unnecessary evidence, wastage of time and conflicting findings. Since SA 338/2025 was numbered prior in point of time, this Tribunal allows this Transfer Petition in TP 2/2025 and directs the Registry, DRT – III, Chennai to transfer the case in SA 265/2025 to DRT, Coimbatore to dispose SA 265/2025 jointly along with SA 338/2025 pending on the file of DRT, Coimbatore.

¶26

Accordingly, this Transfer Petition 2/2025 is allowed.

¶27

Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶28

[Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 18^th June, 2025]

¶29

Sd/- [Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON

¶30

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Srinivasa Garment Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Birla Capital Limited v. Srinivasa Garment Private Limited

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

Similar cases

Indian Bank versus T Ramalakshmi

Ms Sri Nathan Traders versus Canara Bank

J Srinivasalu versus 1 Union Bank of India and 2 K S Raja

Canara Bank versus Akshaya Tex

State Bank of India versus Sre Bagawathi Tex and 3others

Star metal Company and Anr. versus Bank Of Baroda