Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Krishnan

DRT27 Feb 2025TA/1167/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an interim application to amend the main application correcting a typographical error in the respondent's father's name and directed the respondent to furnish security or face conditional attachment of his property to secure bank dues.

What did the court decide?

IA 1511/24 allowed permitting name amendment; IA 1512/24 granted directing respondent to show cause within 10 days for security or facing conditional attachment of property.

Bank of Baroda versus Krishnan — Maintenance and Alimony | DRT (2025)

¶1

IAs 1511/24 & 1512/24 in TA 1167/2023

¶2

27.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. Nos.1511/2024 & 1512/2024 in T.A. No. 1167 of 2023

¶8

Bank of Baroda Chennai Main Branch J.C. House New No.70, Old No.28 Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 026 Rep. by Chief Manager ROSARB, No.10. C.P. Ramasamy Road Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018 ….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶9

Mr. Krishnan Marimuthu

¶10

S/o Krishnan

¶11

Now residing at G-1, Ground Floor

¶12

Lakshmi Homes, Plot No.522

¶13

Arul Nagar, No.12, Veerama Munivar Street

¶14

Urappakkam, Nandhivaram Village Chengalpattu District

¶15

Mr. R. Gurunathan

¶16

S/o Ramapalaniyappan

¶17

No.3/131, Mogappair West Chennai – 600 037 ….Respondents / Defendants

¶18

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶19

Counsel for Petitioner /Applicant : Sh. R. Kumararaja

¶20

: - ORDER ON IAs1511/24 & 1512/24 - :

¶21

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the

¶22

Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly

¶23

and severally to pay a sum of Rs.39,87,028.11p (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Eighty

¶24

Seven Thousand and Twenty Eight and Eleven Paise only) together with further interest and costs.

¶25

IAs 1511/24 & 1512/24 in TA 1167/2023

¶26

¶27

27.02.2025

¶28

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., I.A.Nos.1511/24 & 1512/24 with affidavit of its Chief Manager, ROSARB, Chennai, Sh. Premkumar, praying to permit applicant bank to amend the father‟s name of 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant as “Krishnan” instead of “Marimuthu” wherever it occurs and seeking for an order directing the 1^st respondent / defendant to furnish security to the tune of claim made in the OA (less Rs.20,50,000/- to be recorded as Part Satisfaction) within the time to be fixed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal, failing which to pass an order of Attachment Before Judgment in respect of the properties morefully detailed in the accompanying petition, pending disposal of the main OA.

¶29

In IA No.1511/24, it is the case of applicant bank that the while verifying the cause title of the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant, his father‟s name has been wrongly typed as Marimuthu, instead of correct name Krishnan, which is due to inadvertence. Hence applicant bank prayed that applicant bank may be permitted to amend the same wherever it occurs in the OA.

¶30

In IA No.1512/24, applicant bank submitted that Respondents / Defendants availed credit facilities from applicant bank and respondents /defendants executed necessary loan and security documents towards the loan. It is contended that the defendants subsequent to availing of loan, committed default in repayment. Hence applicant bank had classified the loan accounts as NPA in accordance with RBI guidelines, even after which as defendants did not come forward to repay the dues, the present OA is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.39,87,028.11p together with further interest and costs.

¶31

It is submitted by applicant bank that during the pendency of OA, applicant bank through its Authorised Officer initiated SARFAESI proceedings and sold Schedule A mentioned immovable property in E-auction sale held on 08.06.2021 to

¶32

IAs 1511/24 & 1512/24 in TA 1167/2023

¶33

¶34

27.02.2025

¶35

the highest bidder one Mr. Govi Ramanathan, who has paid the entire sale price of Rs.20,50,000/- on 24.06.2021, which was duly credited to the borrower‟s Housing Loan account. Accordingly, applicant bank had also filed separate part satisfaction memo before this Tribunal.

¶36

It is contended that Schedule B property which is a Four Wheeler alone is now available for the balance dues under both Housing Loan and Baroda Auto Limit. It is reliability learnt that 1^st defendant‟s father, one Krishnan has recently executed a Registered Settlement Deed dated 30.08.2023 in respect of an independent property, morefully detailed in the schedule to the IA in favour of 1^st respondent / defendant, which is registered as Document No.1/1815/2023 on the file of SRO, Karambakudi, copies of which are furnished along with the IA.

¶37

It is the further case of applicant bank that 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant who is stated to be employed in Singapore, is attempting to dispose of the petition schedule mentioned property with an intention to cheat the petitioner / applicant by creating a third party interest over the properties morefully described in the accompanying petition and to protract further proceedings in the above case for recovery of balance dues with interest and costs. Hence the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant should be directed within a time to be fixed by this Tribunal either to furnish security in such sum as may be specified in the order as may be sufficient to satisfy the certificate for recovery of debt or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security, failing which to order for attachment before judgment 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 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant.

¶38

IAs 1511/24 & 1512/24 in TA 1167/2023

¶39

27.02.2025

¶40

¶41

Notice to respondents / defendant in the IAs returned unserved as „left‟ in respect of R-1 and „no such person‟ in respect of R-2. Hence applicant bank was directed to cause paper publication in vernacular language. Accordingly, applicant bank had caused paper publication of the notice in „Dinamani‟ dated 17.11.2024 and filed proof thereof vide SR No.16340/24 dated 25.11.2024.

¶42

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

¶43

Ld. Counsel for petitioner / applicant bank submitted that defendants have evaded service of summons, which returned unserved as „no such person‟. Applicant bank had caused paper publication and filed proof thereof. Accordingly, defendants were set ex-parte on 06.04.2022.

¶44

It appears that the Petitioner/Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that 1^st Defendant may alienate or dispose of or create third-party interest on the properties morefully described in the schedule to the main application. The present IA is filed for attachment of the properties as described in the schedule to the IA. The records reveal that even after sale of secured asset, there is huge outstanding amount to be recovered from the defendants and in the event of Recovery Certificate being issued, the applicant bank is left with no sufficient security to recover its dues. Further, the defendants failed to repay the loan installments and committed default. Therefore, the apprehension of the applicant bank that the defendants, might encumber the property to avoid the recovery of the amount, cannot be simply brushed aside.

¶45

IAs 1511/24 & 1512/24 in TA 1167/2023

¶46

27.02.2025

¶47

¶48

Considering the recovery of sum of Rs.39,87,028.11p with further interest and costs, no prejudice would be caused in allowing the prayer as sought for in the present IA.

¶49

The applicant bank having made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience found to be in its favour.

¶50

IA No.1511/24 is allowed permitting applicant bank to cause necessary amendment as prayed for and file amended clean copy of OA.

¶51

In IA No.1512/24, in the circumstances pleaded, 1^st respondent / defendant is hereby directed to show cause as to why he should not furnish security for the OA claim in a sum of Rs.39,87,028.11p (Less Rs.20,50,000/- realised by way of SARFAESI sale) within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to attach the 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.

¶52

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

¶53

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶54

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA)

¶55

PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶56

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 27^th day of February, 2025)

Bank of Baroda v. Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Krishnan

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

Union Bank of India versus Mrs Sudha Sundaravaradhan And Another

Alphamed Labs and others versus Bank of Baroda

S Muthukumaran versus Canara Bank

Bank of Maharashtra versus M s Vpm Housing

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr Mohammed Rahamatulla

Laxmi Vilas Bank versus M S Southern Textile Home Fashions Pvt. Ltd.