Allowed

Bank of India v. Ms Leo Vending Concepts

DRT27 Jun 2025OA/156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interstimate application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal directed defendants to furnish security of Rs. 1.15 crore or face attachment of their properties. The Tribunal allowed the interim order, citing the risk of alienation and the balance of convenience, without adjudicating the merits of the main claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to defendants to furnish security of Rs. 1,15,92,176 within 15 days or face attachment of schedule properties.

Bank of India versus Ms Leo Vending Concepts — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IA 1185/25 in OA 156/2024

¶2

27.06.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. No.1185 of 2025 in O.A. No. 156 of 2024

¶8

Bank of India

¶9

Chennai Main Branch

¶10

Rep. by its Constituted Attorney “Star House” No.30 (Old No.17), Errabalu Street Chennai – 600 001

¶11

….Applicant

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

M/s Leo Vending Concepts

¶14

Represented by its Proprietrix

¶15

Mrs. Renuka Srinivasan

¶16

No.16, South Mada Street

¶17

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004

¶18

Mrs. Renuka Srinivasan

¶19

Proprietrix M/s Leo Vending Concepts W/o Mr. Srinivasan Deviah

¶20

46, 1^st Main Road Indra Nagar, Adyar Chennai – 600 020 …..Defendants

¶21

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶22

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. M.P. Venkateswaran

¶23

: - ORDER ON IA NO.1185 of 2025- :

¶24

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the

¶25

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

¶26

2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,92,176/- (Rupees One

¶27

Crores Fifteen Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred and

¶28

Seventy Six only) together with further interest and costs.

¶29

IA 1185/25 in OA 156/2024

¶30

27.06.2025

¶31

¶32

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.1185/2025 with affidavit of the Chief Manager of applicant bank, Sh. S.V.T. Engles, seeking for an order directing the defendants, jointly and severally, to furnish security to this Tribunal to the tune of OA claim being Rs.1,15,92,176/- within a time frame stipulated by this Tribunal, failing which to pass an order of attachment of the properties annexed to the schedule of the petition, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶33

It is submitted by applicant bank that the credit facilities sanctioned to the defendants is not secured by immovable property. The defendants filed their written statement and have not disputed the liability. As borrowing and liability are admitted by the defendants and the defense taken by them is only sham and nominal with regard to CGTMSE cover, which is not factually or legally sustainable.

¶34

It is further submitted by the applicant bank that out of great difficulty, the applicant bank had identified a property belonging to the 2^nd defendant situated at Door No.46 (Old No.41), First Main Road, Indra Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020, morefully described in the schedule to the accompanying petition. The applicant bank apprehends that the 2^nd defendant is trying to alienate or encumber or create 3^rd party rights over the schedule property with an intent to defeat the execution of the Recovery Certificate that is likely to be passed by this Tribunal. Hence the present application is filed to direct the defendants to furnish security to secure the claim amount of the petitioner bank, failing which to pass an order of

¶35

IA 1185/25 in OA 156/2024

¶36

¶37

27.06.2025

¶38

attachment before judgment of the schedule mentioned properties belonging to defendants 1 and 2 herein, till the disposal of the OA.

¶39

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

¶40

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that 2^nd Defendant may alienate or dispose of or create third-party interest on the properties morefully described in the schedule to the main application. Considering the amount of claim involved in this case and the balance of convenience, the present IA is to be allowed by keeping open the merits of

¶41

the case and without prejudice to the rights of both the parties. By doing so, no prejudice, no harm and loss will be caused to the Defendants.

¶42

As per Section 19 (13)(A) of RDB Act,

¶43

“ Where, at any stage of the proceedings, [the Tribunal on an application made by the applicant along with particulars of property to be attached and estimated value thereof, or otherwise is satisfied] that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay or frustrate the execution of any order for the recovery of debt that may be passed against him

¶44

(i)is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or

¶45

(ii)is about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; or

¶46

(iii)is likely to cause any damage or mischief to the property or affect its value by misuse or creating third party interest,

¶47

IA 1185/25 in OA 156/2024

¶48

27.06.2025

¶49

¶50

the Tribunal may direct the defendant, within a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce and place at the disposal of the Tribunal, when required, the said property or the value of the same, or such portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the certificate for the recovery of debt, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security.

¶51

(B)Where the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security, or fails to furnish the security required, within the time fixed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal may order the attachment of the whole or such portion of the properties claimed by the applicant as the properties secured in his favour or otherwise owned by the defendant as appears sufficient to satisfy any certificate for the recovery of debt.”

¶52

As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the 2^nd defendant in respect of the schedule mentioned in the schedule to the petition, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶53

:ORDER:

¶54

In the circumstances pleaded, defendants are hereby directed to show cause as to why they should not furnish security to the tune of Rs.1,15,92,176/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to attach the IA schedule mentioned property to answer the

¶55

IA 1185/25 in OA 156/2024

¶56

27.06.2025

¶57

¶58

OA claim herein. Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the schedule

¶59

mentioned property is ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank.

¶60

The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Concerned

¶61

Sub Registrar Office/ Village Officer for necessary action and for records.

¶62

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

27^th day of June, 2025)

:- SCHEDULE -:

SCHEUDLE A

(Entire Property)

House, ground and premises bearing Door No.46 (Old No.41), First Main Road, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020, being Plot No.361-W in the sanctioned plan of South Madras Neighbourhood Scheme, comprised in Survey No.2 Part and Survey No.3, Part of Kalikundram Village, present T.S. No.23 of Block no.15, Corporation Division 100 and bounded on the

¶70

North by Plot No.358 – W

¶71

South by First Main Road, Indira Nagar

¶72

East by Plot No.362 – W

¶73

West by Plot No.360 – W

¶74

And measuring North to South on both sides 80 Feet and East to West on both sides 50 Feet in all measuring 1 ground and 1600 Sq. ft.

¶75

IA 1185/25 in OA 156/2024

¶76

27.06.2025

¶77

¶78

Situated within the Registration District of Chennai South and Sub Registration District of Adyar.

¶79

SCHEDULE B

¶80

(property belonging to the 2nd defendant)

¶81

An undivided common 50/100^th (half) share in the vacant land specified in Schedule A above together with building in the ground floor of the said land measuring 1906 Sq. ft.

¶82

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

Bank of India v. Ms Leo Vending Concepts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Ms Leo Vending Concepts

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

State Bank of India versus Solomon Jachin Finney G

Bank of Baroda versus vadim infrastructure private limited

M s Saibaba Ploymer Technologies Pvt. Limited Authoried signatory N G Naveen Kumar versus Uco Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s. Aakash Constructions

Bank of Baroda versus S Bhaskar

Bank of Baroda versus Vayal Agri Trading Company