Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs G Anuradha

DRT20 Aug 2025OA/27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.27/2023 for recovery, Bank of Baroda applied for attachment of respondent's properties. The Tribunal allowed conditional attachment as second and third charges and directed the respondent to show cause why she should not furnish security within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Conditional attachment of properties mentioned in IA Schedule as second and third charges; direction to respondent to show cause within 15 days why she should not furnish security for the balance clai

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs G Anuradha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IA No.1700/25 in OA No.27/2023

¶2

20.08.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 20^th day of August, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. No.1700 of 2025 in O.A. No. 27 of 2023

¶8

Bank of Baroda Kodambakkam Branch, 1^st Main Road United India Colony, Kodambakkam Chennai – 600 024 Rep. by its Senior Manager ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Mrs. G. Anuradha S/o Krishnamurthy Giridharan Flat No.205, 2^nd Floor TRANQUILITY, 1/535, Pillaiyar Koil Street Okkiyam Thuraipakkam Chennai – 600 097 …..Respondents / Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Vaidyanathan

¶13

: - ORDER ON IA NO.1700 of 2025- :

¶14

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.37,54,360.55p (Rupees Thirty Seven

¶15

Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty and Fifty Five

¶16

Paise only) together with further interest and costs.

¶17

The Applicant has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.1700/2025 with affidavit of the Chief Manager, Sh. C. Baskaran of applicant bank, seeking for an order of attachment of the schedule mentioned property belonging to the respondent, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶18

IA No.1700/25 in OA No.27/2023

¶19

¶20

20.08.2025

¶21

It is the case of Applicant that the respondent had availed Term Loan of Rs.35 lakhs for the purpose of setting up cold storage room and related machinery and had executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of applicant bank. The loan was further secured by mortgage of the property morefully detailed in the schedule to IA and executed Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 13.10.2021 registered as Doc No.5126/2021 with SRO, Joint-II, Kanchipuram.

¶22

It is submitted by applicant bank that subsequent to availing of loan, respondent did not carry the business as per the terms of sanction and has since closed down their business and had also clandestinely sold the machinery purchased out of the loan, which was under hypothecation to the bank. The immovable property was sold under SARFAESI Act and a sum of Rs.10.45 lakhs has been realized, which is grossly insufficient to cover the dues of the defendant.

¶23

It is further submitted that after sale of the mortgaged property, there is still an outstanding of Rs.27.67 lakhs plus unapplied interest from the date of NPA in the loan account, for which there is no security available to the bank. It has now come to the notice of the petitioner that the defendant is owning the property mentioned in the schedule I in her individual name and that the Schedule II jointly with her husband. As per the EC, the property was Schedule I is mortgaged to M/s State Bank of India vide MOD Doc No.5473/2020 dated 12.08.2020 and Schedule II is mortgaged to M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited vide MOD Doc No.4338/2020 and there is an attachment of M/s

¶24

IA No.1700/25 in OA No.27/2023

¶25

¶26

20.08.2025

¶27

Margadarasi Chits Private Limited vide Attachment Order dated Doc No.3/2022 and 11/2024 and M/s Shreeemathi Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. vide Attachment order Doc No.7/2025 as per the EC which is enclosed along with IA.

¶28

The residual value of property at Scheudle I is Rs.5 lakhs and estimated residual value of the property at Schedule II i.e., half share of the respondent would be approximately RS.30 lakhs. The outstanding in the account of the respondent is over Rs.30 lakhs which is inclusive of unapplied interest and hence the attachment of the said properties as 2^nd and 3^rd charge respectively, would not cause any prejudice to the respondent or her husband, who is the joint owner of the property at schedule – II. Hence the present application is filed to pass an order of attachment before judgment of the petition schedule mentioned properties, till the disposal of the OA.

¶29

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

¶30

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that respondent may alienate or dispose of or create third-party interest on the properties morefully described in the schedule to the IA.

¶31

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.37,54,360.55p, which is a colossal sum of money. After sale of mortgaged property applicant bank had realised only a sum of Rs.1045 lakhs towards partial recovery. Considering the balance amount of claim

¶32

IA No.1700/25 in OA No.27/2023

¶33

20.08.2025

¶34

¶35

involved in this case and the balance of convenience, the present IA is to be allowed by keeping open the merits of 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 Defendant.

¶36

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

¶37

“ Where, at any stage of the proceedings, [the Tribunal on

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

IA No.1700/25 in OA No.27/2023

¶44

20.08.2025

¶45

¶46

(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.”

¶47

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

¶48

:ORDER:

¶49

In the circumstances pleaded, respondent is hereby directed to show cause as to why she should not furnish security to the tune of balance OA claim (after recovery of a sum of Rs.10,45,000/- by way of sale of mortgaged property), within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to attach the IA schedule mentioned property owned by the respondent to answer the OA claim herein.

¶50

Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the petition schedule mentioned properties is ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank, as second charge of the applicant bank in respect of Item No.1 of IA schedule mentioned property belonging to

¶51

IA No.1700/25 in OA No.27/2023

¶52

20.08.2025

¶53

¶54

respondent, as the Encumbrance Certificate produced by the applicant bank reflects the charge of State Bank of India vide MOD Doc No.5473/2020 dated 12.08.2020; and

¶55

as third charge of the applicant bank in respect of Item No.2

¶56

of IA schedule mentioned property belonging to respondent and her husband jointly as the Encumbrance Certificate produced by the applicant bank reflects the charge of M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited vide MOD Doc No.4338/2020, and there is an attachment of M/s Margadarasi Chits Private Limited vide Attachment Order dated Doc No.3/2022 and 11/2024 and M/s Shreeemathi Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. vide Attachment order Doc No.7/2025.

¶57

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

¶58

IA Schedule properties 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

20^th day of August, 2025)

¶63

IA No.1700/25 in OA No.27/2023 7 20.08.2025

¶64

IA No.1700/25 in OA No.27/2023

¶65

¶66

20.08.2025

¶67

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

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs G Anuradha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs G Anuradha

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

Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. versus Mr C Bethuraj And Other

Union Bank of India versus Skp Traders

Punjab National Bank versus Karthikeyan

Punjab National Bank versus Mohamed Ghouse

J Rathiga versus Ms Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.

Mrs Dulsierni Lionel versus Smfg India Credit Formerly M S Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.