Allowed

Uco Bank v. Vinay and Co.

DRT17 Jun 2025MA/68/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In M.A. No.68 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the petitioner's application to raise an order of attachment placed on its property. The court directed the Registry to communicate the order to the Sub Registrar Office at Neeelangarai to remove the attachment endorsement from the Encumbrance Certificate, based on a 2014 compromise order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Registry to communicate the order to raise the attachment to the Sub Registrar Office, Neeelangarai.

Uco Bank versus Vinay and Co. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 68/25 in OA 220/2013

¶2

17.06.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No.68 of 2025 in O.A. No. 220 of 2013

¶8

M/s Vaishnovi Infrastructure Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

¶9

Rep. by its Managing Director, Ashok Giri GST Road, NH-45, Kallabiranpuram Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kanchipuram District

¶10

Also at

¶11

No. 13, 32^nd Cross Street

¶12

Besant Nagar, Chennai – 90

¶13

Ashok Giri,

¶14

S/o A. Giri

¶15

No. 13, 32^nd Cross Street

¶16

Besant Nagar, Chennai – 90 ….Petitioners

¶17

-Vs-

¶18

Vijaya Bank, Mylapore Branch Rep. by its Chief Manager No. 12, Sannadi Street Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004

¶19

…..Defendants

¶20

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶21

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s R. Thiagarajan Counsel for respondent bank : M/s Ramalingam & Associates

¶22

: - ORDER ON MA NO.68 of 2025- :

¶23

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the

¶24

Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendant Nos.1 to 5

¶25

jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.40,68,15,896/- (Rupees Forty

¶26

Crores Sixty Eight Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred and

¶27

Ninety Six only) together with further interest and costs.

¶28

MA 68/25 in OA 220/2013

¶29

17.06.2025

¶30

¶31

The petitioners, who are defendants 1 and 2 in OA, has filed the present petition i.e., M.A.No.68/2025 with affidavit of the 2^nd defendant seeking to direct the Registry of DRT-III, Chennai to communicate the raising of the order of attachment as per Clause of 4 of the Memorandum of Compromise which forms part of final order dated 30.10.2014 at the petitioner’s cost.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioners / defendants 1 and 2 that the above OA was filed by applicant bank for recovery of sum of Rs.40 crores. During the pendency of OA, the applicant bank had filed an interim application and sought ex-parte order of attachment of the Palavakkam Property belonging to 2^nd applicant. Considering the said application, this Tribunal had passed an order of attachment and the same was also communicated to the Office

¶33

of the SRO, Neelankarai, for making necessary endorsement in the Encumbrance Certificate.

¶34

It is further submitted that pending OA proceedings, defendants had given a proposal for OTS and the same was approved and pursuant to the OTS approval, a sum of Rs.19 crores was paid by the defendants towards closure of the entire dues. In this connection, a Memorandum of Compromise was signed between the parties hereto and on 30.10.2014, pursuant to the Memorandum of Compromise, this Tribunal had passed a final order recording the compromise. As per the said memorandum, under clause 4, since the dues of the applicant bank are being paid in full by the petitioners, the order of attachment that came to be passed by this Tribunal

¶35

MA 68/25 in OA 220/2013

¶36

¶37

17.06.2025

¶38

was agreed to be raised and the said order ought to be communicated by Registrar of this Tribunal to the office of SRO, Neelankarai.

¶39

In this connection, it would be relevant to mention that as per the Madras Amendment to Order XXI Rule 55A of CPC, 1908, the order of raising of attachment has to be communicated by the Registry of the Court to the jurisdictional Registering officer. Hence unless the order of raising the attachment is communicated by the Registry of this Tribunal, the Registering officer would not effect necessary endorsement in the Encumbrance Certificate. Hence the present MA is filed to raise the order

¶40

of attachment as against Schedule A property and the same may be communicated to SRO, Neelankarai. The petitioners are put to great prejudice in as much as the attachment still reflects in the EC and they are not in a position to use and enjoy the property situated at Pallavakkam as the rightful owner.

¶41

Notice was ordered to respondent / applicant bank. Accordingly, petitioners have taken notice and filed proof of service of notice to both applicant bank and counsel on record for applicant bank. Despite receiving notice on 18.02.2025 instance, neither applicant bank nor counsel on record for applicant bank had chosen to file any counter to the MA. Hence opportunity to file counter to MA was closed today.

¶42

Heard the counsel for petitioners and respondent bank and

¶43

perused the records of produced along with the IA.

¶44

It is manifest from records that in IA No.361/23 is filed by applicant bank praying to furnish security to the extent of OA claim, failing which to

¶45

MA 68/25 in OA 220/2013

¶46

17.06.2025

¶47

¶48

pass an order of attachment before judgment, this Tribunal vide order dated 01.10.2013 granted interim attachment, which was subsequently made absolute vide order dated 22.10.2013 and the same was accordingly communicated to the concerned SRO.

¶49

During the pendency of OA, parties have entered into a negotiated settlement and filed a joint memo of compromise dated 30.10.2014 before this Tribunal. The said memo was taken on record and OA came to be disposed as settled out of Court between the parties vide order dated 30.10.2014, wherein it is mentioned that the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the order.

¶50

Now, it is the case of the petitioners that as per the said memorandum, under clause 4, since the dues of the applicant bank are being paid in full by the petitioners, the order of attachment that came to be passed by this Tribunal was agreed to be raised and the said order ought to be communicated by Registrar of this Tribunal to the office of SRO, Neelankarai. Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Compromise dated 30.10.2024 is extracted below:

¶51

“4. The order of attachment effected as against Palavakkam Property belonging to the second defendant shall stand raised and removed and shall be communicated to the SRO, Neelangarai forthwith by DRT.”

¶52

MA 68/25 in OA 220/2013

¶53

17.06.2025

¶54

¶55

In view of the above, as parties have arrived at a compromise settlement and closed the loan accounts, this Tribunal that it would be appropriate to allow the MA.

¶56

In the result, the interim attachment ordered in IA No.361/23 dated 01.10.2013, which was subsequently made absolute vide order dated 22.10.2013 in respect of the IA Schedule property, stands raised.

¶57

The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Concerned Sub Registrar Office/ Village Officer for necessary action and for records, upon payment of appropriate fee by the petitioners.

¶58

Schedule property of the IA No.361/2013 shall form part of this order.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

17^th day of June, 2025)

¶63

SCHEDULE

¶64

All that piece and parcel of land and building, along with building constructed thereon with a build up area about 20,000 Sq. ft. measuring an extent of Acre 1.00 cents comprised in Survey Nos.9/J, 9/9A, 9/9B, 9, 8/3 and 8/D part of Palavakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk,

¶65

MA 68/25 in OA 220/2013

¶66

17.06.2025

¶67

¶68

Kancheepuram District, bounded on the North by 40 feet Road (M.G.R. Salai); South by Neelangarai Village; East by Plot No.29 and West by Plot No.31 situate within the Registration District of Chennai South and the Registration Sub District of Neelangarai.

¶69

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

Uco Bank v. Vinay and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Vinay and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Abhiraj Constructions

State Bank of India versus Dhinakaran

Bank of India versus M/S Kn Interior Designs and Engineering Private Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S Mathan Leather Company

Canara Bank versus Cahandraprabha

Punjab National Bank versus Mother Graphics