Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s Colorhome Developers Pvt. Ltd.

DRT9 Apr 2025TA/1158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an interim application seeking attachment of specific property to secure outstanding dues and restrain respondents from transferring or dealing with it pending disposal of the main case, citing apprehension of alienation and insufficient secured recovery.

What did the court decide?

The schedule mentioned property is attached and respondents are restrained from dealing with, selling, transferring, leasing, or creating encumbrances on it.

State Bank of India versus M/s Colorhome Developers Pvt… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IA 820/25 in TA 1158/2023

¶2

09.04.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 09^th day of April, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. No.820 of 2025 in T.A. No. 1158 of 2023

¶8

State Bank of India SME Ekkatuthangal Branch No.5, Jawaharlal Nehru Road Ekkaduthangal, Chennai – 32 Rep. by its Chief Manager ARMB South, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s. Colorhome Developers Pvt. Ltd.

¶12

No.37, A Block, 6^th Street

¶13

Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102

¶14

& 04 others …..Defendants

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Vaidyanathan

¶17

: - ORDER ON IA NO.820 of 2025- :

¶18

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendant Nos.1 to

¶19

3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.3,99,44,406/- (Rupees

¶20

Three Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Six only) together with further interest and costs.

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.820/2025 with affidavit of the Chief Manager of applicant bank, Mr.

¶22

Sheikh Sharwar, praying to advance the hearing from 20.06.2025 to any

¶23

IA 820/25 in TA 1158/2023

¶24

09.04.2025

¶25

¶26

earlier date for the purpose of hearing IA 1038/21 in 528/2020 filed by applicant bank praying to implead respondents 4 and 5 in the IA 528/2020, which is filed to order attachment of the property mentioned in the schedule and direct the Sub Registrar, Selaiyur, Chennai South not to effect any registrations on the property without prior permission of the Tribunal, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶27

It is the case of applicant bank that the IA No.528/20 has been filed before this Tribunal seeking attachment of non-mortgaged property mentioned in schedule to IA, owned by the 2^nd defendant, since the value of the mortgaged property was grossly insufficient to cover the dues of the respondents. This Tribunal had issued notice to respondents in IA not to deal with the said property until further orders, vide order dated 09.10.2020. However, the defendants had clandestinely dealt with the property and 2^nd defendant had transferred the property in the name of 3^rd defendant and 3^rd defendant had in turn settled the property in the name of her father Mr. Gopinath.

¶28

It is further submitted that the applicant bank had filed another IA 1038/21 seeking cancellation of Document No.7255 of 2020 and 7652 of 2020 issued by Sub Registrar, Selaiyur and Doc. No.5520 of 2020 by Sub Registrar, Padappai and restore the status quo ante as on 03.10.2020, pending hearing and disposal of IA 528/2020. This Tribunal granted interim order of attachment of the property vide its order dated 08.10.2021 restraining the proposed respondents R-4 and R-5 from

¶29

IA 820/25 in TA 1158/2023

¶30

¶31

09.04.2025

¶32

dealing with the property. In the meanwhile, proof affidavit was filed by applicant bank and defendants filed their Counter proof affidavit in the IAs. Subsequently, case was transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and the said IA was not taken up for hearing.

¶33

It is the case of applicant bank that the property mortgaged in the account has already been sold under SARFAESI Act by private treaty for an amount of Rs.1,86,00,000/- and the related mortgage and title documents which were filed before the Tribunal along with the PA has been returned to the applicant bank. The balance amount recoverable from the defendants is about Rs.3,35,99,665.75p after sale of the mortgaged property and there is no other security except the property sought for interim attachment for recovery of debt due. Further, since part of the property had already been gifted to the Panchayat Union, the defendants may adopt some dubious methods to dispose of the property or to prevent enforcement of the same.

¶34

It is submitted by applicant bank that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, if the said property is attached, as D-2 and D-3 are personal guarantors, to the loan account, who had transferred the property to D-5, in violation of the orders of this Tribunal and the estimated value of the property would still be much less than the short fall in the present outstanding in the loan account.

¶35

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

¶36

IA 820/25 in TA 1158/2023

¶37

09.04.2025

¶38

¶39

It is a matter of record that in IA No.528/2020 vide order dated 09.10.2020, respondents were directed not to alienate the schedule property till disposal of the attachment petition. Subsequently, applicant bank had filed IA No.1038/2021 in IA No.528/2020 praying to implead respondents 4 and 5, being the relatives, in whose name the defendants had illegally transferred the subject property morefully detailed in IA. IA No.1038/21 was taken up on 08.10.2021 and the following order is passed:

¶40

“There shall be an order restraining the respondents

¶41

including the additional respondents 4 and 5 sought to be impleaded in IA No.1038/2021 from dealing with or dispossessing the schedule properties until further orders and the applicant is permitted to communicate this order to the concerned SRO.”

¶42

It appears that the Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. submitting therein that after sale of mortgaged property under SARFAESI by private treaty and realisation of Rs.1.86 crores, there is a balance amount of Rs.3 crores and odd to be recovered from defendants together with future interest. The apprehension of the applicant bank that 5^th respondent in IA may alienate or dispose of or create third-party interest on the properties morefully described in the schedule to the IA. 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

¶43

IA 820/25 in TA 1158/2023

¶44

09.04.2025

¶45

¶46

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. As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for granting an order of attachment restraining the 5^th respondent in respect of the schedule mentioned in the schedule to the petition, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶47

:ORDER:

¶48

In the circumstances pleaded, IA schedule mentioned property is hereby attached to secure the dues of the applicant bank and the respondents are hereby restrained in dealing with the schedule mentioned property, sell, transfer, lease or create any encumbrance until further orders from the Tribunal.

¶49

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

¶50

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

09^th day of April, 2025)

State Bank of India v. M/s Colorhome Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s Colorhome Developers Pvt. Ltd.

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

Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus M s Himaja Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

J.R.Furnace And Ovens Private Limited Represented by Its Director Mr Ramesh Jayashankar versus Icici Bank Limited

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank versus M/S Mun Papers

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s. Aks Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Mms Iron Corporation and others versus City Union Bank Limited

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Thiru Murugan Modern Rice Mill