Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Mohan Krishna Urath

DRT4 Apr 2025OA/304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an IA before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the applicant bank sought attachment before judgment against respondents to secure dues from a home loan account. The tribunal allowed the application, directing the first respondent to furnish security or face property attachment.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to furnish security for Rs.5,45,27,196/- within 10 days; otherwise, schedule properties to be attached.

State Bank of India versus Mohan Krishna Urath — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IA 65/25 in OA 304/2024

¶2

04.04.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of April, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. No.65 of 2025 in O.A. No. 304 of 2024

¶8

State Bank of India SARB-II, Rep. by its Deputy Manager Having office at No.44, Ist Floor, Eldams Road Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Mr. Mohan Kirshna Urath

¶11

S/o Konthath Ravindranath Vallanchy No.19/8, Venkatapathy Street, Kellys Chennai – 600 010

¶12

Mrs. Anita Mohan

¶13

S/o Mohan Krishna Urath

¶14

No.19/8, Venkatapathy Street, Kellys Chennai – 600 010 …..Defendants

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : M/s N. Kishore Kumar

¶17

: - ORDER ON IA NO.65 of 2025- :

¶18

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the

¶19

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

¶20

and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.5,45,27,196/- (Rupees

¶21

Five Crores Forty Five Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Six only) together with further interest and costs.

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.65/2025 with affidavit of the Deputy Manager of applicant bank,

¶23

IA 65/25 in OA 304/2024

¶24

04.04.2025

¶25

¶26

Sh. Jithin Anto, seeking for an order directing the defendants to furnish security to this Tribunal to the tune of OA claim being Rs.5,45,27,196/-, failing which to pass an order of attachment of the properties annexed to the schedule of the petition before judgment, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶27

It is the case of applicant bank that the Defendants have availed Home Loan to the tune of Rs.4,30,00,000/-, Top Up Loan of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and executed loan and security documents in favour of the applicant bank. Due to default in operating the loan accounts, it turned into NPA on 08.06.2023. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the applicant bank, defendants failed to repay the loan amount. Hence the present OA is filed for recovery of sum of Rs. Rs.5,45,27,196/- due as on 24.11.2023. It is submitted by applicant bank that the estimated value of the properties or assets over which security created against the schedule property may not be sufficient to recover the entire dues together with interest.

¶28

It is submitted by applicant bank that it is reliably learnt that first respondent / 1^st defendant is owing additional properties morefully detailed in the schedule to IA. It is submitted by applicant bank that the past conduct of the respondents have given the petitioner bank every reason to apprehend that the respondents might sell, transfer, alienate and dispose of their properties with a view to defeat the rights and claims

¶29

of the petitioner and any decree that may be passed in favour of the petitioner bank. If the respondents succeed in creating third party

¶30

IA 65/25 in OA 304/2024

¶31

¶32

04.04.2025

¶33

interest over the property, it would obstruct or delay or frustrate the execution of any order for the recovery of debt that may be passed against them by this Tribunal. Hence the present application is filed to direct the respondents to furnish security to secure the claim amount of the petitioner bank, failing which to pass an order of attachment before judgment of the schedule mentioned properties belonging to respondents 1 and 2 herein, till the disposal of the OA.

¶34

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

¶35

It appears that the Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that 1^st Defendant may alienate or dispose of or create thirdparty 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 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.

¶36

As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the 1^st defendant in respect of the schedule mentioned in the schedule to the petition, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶37

:ORDER:

¶38

In the circumstances pleaded, 1^st defendant is hereby directed to show cause as to why he should not furnish security to the tune of

¶39

IA 65/25 in OA 304/2024

¶40

04.04.2025

¶41

¶42

Rs.5,45,27,196/- within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to attach the IA schedule mentioned property to answer the OA claim herein. Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the schedule mentioned property is ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank.

¶43

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

¶44

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(S.V. GOWRAMMA)

¶47

PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶48

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

¶49

04^th day of April, 2025)

State Bank of India v. Mohan Krishna Urath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mohan Krishna Urath

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

Similar cases

Sasikala Productions versus Indian Bank

Sumangali Nagai Maligai versus Dbs Bank Limited

Ravishankar Industries versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Mala

V Saravanan versus City Union Bank Limited

Nandha T Saravanan versus Canara Bank