Allowed

Yes Bank v. Indurani

DRT28 Aug 2025OA/339/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an interim application filed by Yes Bank Limited seeking attachment of a residential property belonging to the second defendant. The Tribunal directed the defendants to show cause within 15 days regarding furnishing security or face attachment of the specified property belonging to the second respondent. This provisional order was passed to secure the bank's dues

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to show cause within 15 days as to why security of Rs.1,05,97,641.08p should not be furnished; ordered conditional attachment of the schedule property belonging to respondent 2.

Yes Bank versus Indurani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IA No.1179/25 in OA No.339/2025

¶2

28.08.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 28^th day of August, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. No.1179 of 2025 in O.A. No. 339 of 2025

¶8

M/s Yes Bank Limited Parrys Branch Dass India Towers Second Line Beach 3, Beach Road, Parry’s Corner George Town Chennai – 600 001 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory ….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶9

Indurani Venkat

¶10

W/o Venkat No.12, 3^rd Cross Street, East Kamakodi Nagar Valasaravakkam,

¶11

Chennai – 600 087

¶12

V. Natarajan S/o Venkat No.12, 3^rd Cross Street, East Kamakodi Nagar Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087 …..Respondents / Defendants

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. Kvp. Deepak Raj

¶15

: - ORDER ON IA NO.1179 of 2025- :

¶16

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the

¶17

Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendants jointly

¶18

and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,97,641.08p (Rupees One Crore

¶19

Five Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty One and

¶20

Eight Pasie only) due as on 06.08.2024 together with further interest and costs.

¶21

IA No.1179/25 in OA No.339/2025

¶22

¶23

28.08.2025

¶24

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.1179/2025 with affidavit of the Authorised Signatory of applicant bank, Sh. K. Dinakaran, praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to attach the property morefully detailed in the IA schedule belonging to 2^nd respondent, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶25

It is the case of applicant bank that the Defendants 1 and 2 have availed Home Loan to the tune of Rs.1,12,85,000/- for purchasing a residential flat after executing necessary loan and security documents in favour of applicant bank. For the due repayment of the loan amount, the 2^nd respondent had offered to create security on the property morefully detailed in OA. The 2^nd respondent had availed this loan as a take over from M/s Axis Bank Limited. The applicant bank further states that the 2^nd respondent had closed the existing loan in M/s Axis Bank Limited with the loan sanctioned by the applicant bank and the applicant bank has

¶26

redeemed the original documents being Sale Deed Registered as Document No.4398/2014 dated 02.07.2014, SRO, Virugambakkam from them. Subsequent to redemption of documents, the 2^nd respondent had not come forward to create a registered mortgage and had given unconvincing, evasive replies to the applicant bank.

¶27

It is submitted that the respondents neither repaid the loan amounts, except for a few repayments, which was not sufficient for maintaining the loan account. Hence the loan account was declared as NPA and the defendants are due and payable to the applicant bank a sum

¶28

IA No.1179/25 in OA No.339/2025

¶29

¶30

28.08.2025

¶31

of Rs.1,05,97,641.08p together with future interest. Inspite of several demands, defendants did not come forward to repay the dues. Hence the applicant bank had filed the OA No.339/2025 for recovery of its dues from defendants.

¶32

It is further submitted that as the 2^nd respondent has failed to register the mortgage, hence the repayment of the above loan was not secured by any immovable property. Now it is given to understand that 2^nd defendant being the owner of the property, is trying to dispose the said property in order to create third party interest and evading from his liability to pay the dues and also to cause the applicant to suffer detrimental loss, hardship and impediments in recovering its dues of huge magnitude. Hence the present application is filed seeking an order of attachment of the schedule mentioned property belonging to 2^nd respondent, till the disposal of the OA.

¶33

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

¶34

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that 2^nd respondent may alienate or dispose of or create third-party interest on the properties morefully described in the schedule to the main application.

¶35

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.1,05,97,641.08p which is a colossal sum of money. Considering the

¶36

IA No.1179/25 in OA No.339/2025

¶37

28.08.2025

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

“ 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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

IA No.1179/25 in OA No.339/2025

¶47

28.08.2025

¶48

¶49

(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.”

¶50

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

¶51

:ORDER:

¶52

In the circumstances pleaded, respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to show cause as to why they should not furnish security to the tune of OA claim in a sum of Rs.1,05,97,641.08p within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to attach the IA schedule mentioned property belonging to 2^nd respondent to answer the OA claim herein. Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the petition schedule mentioned property is ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank.

¶53

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

¶54

IA No.1179/25 in OA No.339/2025

¶55

28.08.2025

¶56

¶57

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

28^th day of August, 2025)

¶62

SCHEDULE

¶63

Land measuring an extent of 1,935 Sq. ft., together with a building thereon, Comprised in Survey No.74 Part, Door No.13A/1A, in East Kamakoti Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087 situated at Valasaravakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

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

Yes Bank v. Indurani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Indurani

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Umapathy

Idbi Bank versus Selvaraj

Dena Bank versus Babu

Canara Bank versus M/S kumaran Oil Mills

Idbi Bank versus Govindasamy

Bank of Baroda versus Samuel Jabakumar