Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sabari Jayam Match Industries

DRT12 Dec 2025MA/410/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application to vacate an interim injunction and attachment order previously passed in a Debt Recovery Application. The order was vacated following the repayment of dues and recording of full satisfaction by the applicant bank, enabling the defendants to enjoy the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

The injunction/attachment order in IA No.567/2010 is vacated; Registry directed to communicate this to the Sub Registrar Office.

State Bank of India versus Sabari Jayam Match Industries — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 410/25 in TA 1721/23

¶2

12.12.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No.410 of 2025 in T.A. No. 1721 of 2023

¶8

State Bank of India Stressed Asset Management Branch No.32, Montieth Road Red Cross Building Egmore, Chennai ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

M/s Sabari Jayam Match Industries (SJMI) A Partnership firm, represented by its Partners Having its Administrative Office at No.36/46, 48^th Street, IX Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai – 83 & others …..Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s K. Chandrasekaran

¶13

: - ORDER ON MA NO.410 of 2025- :

¶14

The Original Application is filed by the applicant bank against the Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,96,437/- together with further interest and costs.

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., M.A.No.410/2025 with affidavit of the Chief Manager, Sh. A. Venkatesan, seeking for vacating the injunction / attachment order passed in IA No.567

¶16

MA 410/25 in TA 1721/23

¶17

12.12.2025

¶18

¶19

of 2010 in OA No.244 of 2010 dated 13.12.2010 and communicate the same to SRO, Uthangarai.

¶20

It is the case of Applicant Bank that the property mentioned in the schedule of OA was mortgaged in favour of bank. Further, during the pendency of OA, the applicant bank had also filed an application in IA No.567/2010 restraining the defendants from alienating and / or dealing with the properties described in the schedule to IA No.567/2010. In the above IA, Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II had passed an interim injunction in favour of the bank and also a copy of the order was marked to the concerned Sub Registrar for making an entry of the interim order of injunction in their records. As directed by the Tribunal, the SRO, Uthangarai made an entry in their records and the same is reflected in the Encumbrance certificate.

¶21

It is further submitted that in the above OA, final order was passed by DRT-II, Chennai and DRC No.151/2011 was also issued. Subsequently, the file has been transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and re-numbered as TA No.1721/2023.

¶22

During the pendency of Recovery Proceeding, 1^st defendant had approached the applicant bank and settled the dues under OTS and hence the applicant bank filed full satisfaction memo and the same was recorded vide order dated 08.02.2013. The title deeds deposited by the mortgagors were obtained from the Registry and handed over to the mortgagors with

¶23

MA 410/25 in TA 1721/23

¶24

¶25

12.12.2025

¶26

proper acknowledgment. However, the injunction order passed by DRT-II, Chennai is still reflecting in the Encumbrance Certificate.

¶27

It is further submitted that in order to enable the defendants to enjoy the property effectively, it is necessary that the injunction order issued by the Tribunal has to be vacated and a suitable communication be sent to the SRO, Uthankarai, directing them to record the vacation of the interim order.

¶28

Heard the counsel for applicant bank and perused the records of produced along with the IA.

¶29

The Applicant Bank has filed the above M.A. praying to vacate the injunction order / attachment passed in IA No.567 of 2010 in OA No.244 of 2010 by DRT-II, Chennai on 13.12.2010. The Ld. Presiding Officer, DRTII, had passed the injunction order in IA No.567/2010 dated 13.12.2010, there relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

¶30

“Accordingly, the Respondents / Defendants or their authorised agents, the legal representatives are hereby restrained from alienating the properties schedules to

¶31

the present Application, till the disposal of the above OA.

¶32

Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order to

¶33

the jurisdictional SRO with a request to make entries in the relevant register.”

¶34

MA 410/25 in TA 1721/23

¶35

12.12.2025

¶36

¶37

Subsequently, ex-parte final order was passed in the OA on 06.07.2011 and DRC No.151/2011 came to be issued before DRT-II, Chennai.

¶38

During the pendency of recovery proceedings, the 1^st defendant had settled the loan account with applicant bank and accordingly applicant bank had reported full satisfaction of the OA claim. The same was recorded vide order dated 08.02.2013 and the title deeds pertaining to the subject property was since released to the applicant bank on 18.02.2013 under proper acknowledgment.

¶39

Thereafter, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, the OA stood transferred to this Tribunal and was re-numbered as TA No.1721/2023. Now that applicant bank had filed the present MA praying to raise the said attachment order passed in IA, so as to enable the defendants to enjoy their property.

¶40

As the matter is amicably settled between the parties, since reported by applicant bank and recorded by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2013, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶41

:ORDER:

¶42

In the circumstances pleaded, MA No.410 of 2025 stands allowed. The injunction / attachment order passed in IA No.567/2010 dated 13.12.2010 stands vacated.

¶43

MA 410/25 in TA 1721/23

¶44

12.12.2025

¶45

¶46

The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Concerned Sub Registrar Office/ Village Officer for necessary action and for records.

¶47

Schedule property in IA No.567/2010 shall form part of this order.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶50

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the

¶51

12^th day of December, 2025)

State Bank of India v. Sabari Jayam Match Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sabari Jayam Match Industries

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

State Bank of India versus Kannan

Suganthi Educational Trust versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Jai Kamal Paints

State Bank of India versus Loganathan

State Bank of India versus Chellappan

Small Industries Development Bank of India versus Magno Coils