Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Vayal Agri Trading Company

DRT1 Jul 2025TA/185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed interim injunction against two defendants restraining them from alienating mortgaged properties belonging to a deceased legal heir during pendency of recovery application, directing them to furnish security or face attachment.

What did the court decide?

Directed to show cause why security should not be furnished within 15 days; conditional attachment of schedule properties ordered as second charge.

Bank of Baroda versus Vayal Agri Trading Company — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

¶2

01.07.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 01^st day of July, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. No.140 of 2024 in T.A. No. 185 of 2023

¶8

Bank of Baroda

¶9

RO Stressed Assets Recovery Branch No.10, 1^st Floor, Dr. C.P. Ramasamy Road Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018 Rep. by its Chief Manager

¶10

….Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

M/s Vayal Agri Trading Company

¶13

Rep. by its Proprietrix Mrs. R. Maheswari No.3, Anna Salai, Thindivanam Road

¶14

Thiruvannamalai – 606 601

¶15

Mrs. R. Maheswari

¶16

W/o Mr. K. Ramesh Kumar

¶17

No.3, Gandhi Nagar, 4^th Street

¶18

Thiruvannamalai – 606 601

¶19

Mr. K. Ramesh Kumar (since deceased)

¶20

Ms. Sai Kripa D/o Mr. K. Ramesh Kumar No.3, Gandhi Nagar, 4^th Street Thiruvannamalai – 606 601 …..Defendants

¶21

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶22

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Pandurangan

¶23

: - ORDER ON IA NO.140 of 2024- :

¶24

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the

¶25

Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendants jointly

¶26

and severally to pay a sum of Rs.3,76,41,325.62p (Rupees Three

¶27

Crores Seventy Six Lakhs Forty One Thousand Three Hundred and

¶28

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

¶29

2 01.07.2025

¶30

Twenty Five and Sixty Two Paise only) due as on 14.11.2021 together with further interest and costs.

¶31

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.140/2024 with affidavit of the Chief Manager of applicant bank, Sh. Premkumar, seeking for an order of ex-parte interim injunction restraining the 2^nd and 4^th defendants, their agents / servants from transferring, alienating or otherwise disposing off, or dealing with in any manner so as to create further encumbrances or charges over the petition schedule mentioned property belonging to the 2^nd and 4^th respondents, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶32

It is the case of Applicant that the 1^st Defendant, Proprietary concern represented by 2^nd defendant had availed Cash Credit facility limit of Rs.300 lakhs from the applicant bank vide Sanction Letter dated 01.09.2018 for their business purpose and executed loan and security documents in favour of the applicant bank. Loan is secured by mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the immovable property morefully detailed in the schedule to OA, belonging to 2^nd defendant.

¶33

It is submitted by applicant bank that during the pendency of OA, 3^rd defendant died leaving behind his wife and daughter as legal heirs, who are defendants 2 and 4 in the above OA. It is further submitted by applicant that due to default in operating the loan accounts, it was classified as NPA on 29.02.2020. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the applicant bank, defendants failed to repay the loan

¶34

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

¶35

¶36

01.07.2025

¶37

amount. Hence the present OA is filed for recovery of amoutns sum of Rs.87,61,273.86p. It is submitted by applicant bank that the applicant bank had invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act and sold the mortgaged property and recovered a sum of Rs.2,01,00,000/- and now the balance amount of Rs.3,04,59,763.62p as on 13.01.2024 together with further interest and costs in the above TA is unsecured.

¶38

It is further submitted by the applicant bank that the deceased 3^rd respondent was owning the immovable properties situated at Tindivanam Road, Thiruvannamalai Taluk morefully detailed in the schedule to the IA, which was inherited by the 2^nd and 4^th defendants as LRs of the deceased 3^rd defendant. Item No.1 to Item No.7 of the petition schedule properties are mortgaged by late Ramesh Kumar in favour of State Bank of India as evidenced by the Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 08.01.2018 bearing Doc. No.167/2018 executed at JSRO-II, Thiruvannamalai and it is given to understand that the above security is still subsisting as no entry regarding satisfaction of the charge is found in the E.C. The Item No.2 to Item No.5 of the petition schedule properties are mortgaged by late Ramesh Kumar in favour of ICICI Bank as evidenced by the Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 17.12.2020 bearing DOC No.12301/2020 executed at JSRO-II, Thiruvannamalai and it is given to understand that the above security is still subsisting. The value of the above properties are about Rs.300 lakhs.

¶39

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

¶40

01.07.2025

¶41

¶42

It is submitted by the applicant bank that the 2^nd and 4^th respondents are making attempts to dispose off the petition schedule mentioned properties in order to deprive the applicant bank from the fruits of the eventual recovery certificate. It is further submitted that the hypothecation of stocks and book debts are not available since unit was closed and the mortgaged properties were sold and amounts recovered. Hence the present application is filed to direct the defendants to furnish security to secure the claim amount of the petitioner bank, failing which to pass an order of attachment before judgment of the petition schedule mentioned properties, till the disposal of the OA.

¶43

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

¶44

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that 2^nd and 4^th defendants may alienate or dispose of or create third-party interest on the properties morefully described in the schedule to the main application.

¶45

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.3,76,41,325.62p which is a colossal sum of money. 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.

¶46

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

¶47

01.07.2025

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

“ 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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

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.

¶56

(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

¶57

of the whole or such portion of the properties claimed by the applicant as the properties secured in his favour or otherwise

¶58

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

¶59

01.07.2025

¶60

¶61

owned by the defendant as appears sufficient to satisfy any certificate for the recovery of debt.”

¶62

As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the 2^nd and 4^th defendants in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the petition, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶63

:ORDER:

¶64

In the circumstances pleaded, defendants 2 and 4 are hereby directed to show cause as to why they should not furnish security to the tune of OA claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to attach the IA schedule mentioned properties to answer the OA claim herein.

¶65

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 properties belonging to 3^rd defendant, now inherited by 2^nd and 4^th defendants in their capacity as legal heirs, as the Encumbrance Certificate produced by the applicant bank reflects the charge of State Bank of India in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 7 and charge of ICICI Bank in respect of Item Nos.2 to 5.

¶66

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

¶67

01.07.2025

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶71

(S.V. GOWRAMMA)

¶72

PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶73

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 01^st day of July, 2025)

¶74

:- SCHEDULE -:

¶75

Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamali Registration District. Thiruvannamalai Joint Sub District-II, Tiruvannamalai Town, Ward No1, Block No. 36,(New Blok No.49), in Tiruvannamalai Road @ Annasalai.

¶76

Item No:1

¶77

In Town Survey No.2331/1, out of Acre 0.76 cents (33136. square feet), a vacant land site measuring East West 26 feet and North South 214 feet in all measuring 5564 square feet.

¶78

Boundaries:

¶79

East of N.K. Thirugnanasambantham’s property,

¶80

West of K. Rajeshkumar’s property,

¶81

North of K. Rajeshkumar’s property and

¶82

South of Tindivanam Road @ Annasalai.

¶83

Out of which undivided half share 2782 Square Feet of vacant site, a house plot.

¶84

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

01.07.2025

Item No:2

In Town Survey No.2331/1, (New Survey No.3674 & 3674/2A), out of Acre 0.76 cents (331.36 square feet, an extent of ACRE 0.28 ½ cents as well as 12,426 square feet of vacant site, a house plot.

¶89

With Cement Sheet Roofed House built (20 years back) in an area of 1000 square feet of the said vacant site with all Kattukoppu with door and door frames with Electrical accessories with its deposit amount.

¶90

Boundaries:

¶91

East and North of K. Ramesh’s property,

¶92

West of Item No.1 of the schedule mentioned property and

¶93

South of N.K. Thirugnanasambantham’s property,

¶94

Item No:3

¶95

In Town Survey No.2331/5, (New Survey No.3674)-Acre 0.58 cents as well as 25288 square feet of vacant site, a house plot.

¶96

With Cement Sheet Roofed House built in an area of 2000 square feet of the said vacant site with all Kattukoppu with door to door frames with Electrical accessories with its deposit amount.

¶97

Item No:4

¶98

In Town Survey No.2322/3, (New Survey No.3667)-Acre 0.45 cents as well as 19620 square feet of vacant site, a house plot.

¶99

Item No:5

¶100

In Town Survey No.2321, (New Survey No.3667)-Acre 0.09 cents as well as 3924 square feet of vacant site, a house plot.

¶101

IA 140/24 in TA 185/2023

01.07.2025

Item No:6

In Town Survey No.2323/1, (New Survey No.3673)-Acre 0.04 cents as well as 1744 square feet of vacant site, a house plot.

¶106

Item No:7

¶107

In Town Survey No.2323/2, (New Survey No.3673)-Acre 0.07 cents as well as 3052 square feet of vacant site, a house plot.

¶108

Sd/-

¶109

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

Bank of Baroda v. Vayal Agri Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Vayal Agri Trading Company

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s. Aakash Constructions

Bank of India versus Ms Leo Vending Concepts

State Bank of India versus Solomon Jachin Finney G

Bank of Baroda versus S Bhaskar

Yes Bank versus Vasantha

State Bank of India versus John Kennedy