Disposed

City Union Bank Limited v. Gelind Tech Consultants

DRT21 Nov 2025TA/287/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for a recovery certificate, the respondent filed objections alleging irregularities in collateral sale and non-disclosure. The Tribunal dismissed objections as non-maintainable since the bank filed a full satisfaction memo, disposing of the case. Original documents are to be returned.

What did the court decide?

The recovery certificate application is disposed of; original documents are to be returned upon acknowledgement.

City Union Bank Limited versus Gelind Tech Consultants — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 21^st day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.287 of 2022

¶5

City Union Bank Ltd., Thanjavur Medical College Road Branch Represented by its Branch Manager No.322/31, Medical College Road Sundaram Nagar, Thanjavur District – 613 004 …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Gelind Tech Consultants Represented by its Partners (a) Mrs. Malliga (b) Mr. K. Karuppaiah & (c) Mr. K. Murutan No.3, 1^st Street, Indira Nagar Thanjavur District – 613 007

¶8

Mrs. Malliga, W/o Kathiresan No.3, 1^st Street, Indira Nagar Thanjavur District – 613 007

¶9

Mr. K. Karuppaiah S/o Kathiresan No.3, 1^st Street, Indira Nagar Thanjavur District – 613 007

¶10

Mr. K. Murugan, S/o Kathiresan No.3, 1^st Street, Indira Nagar Thanjavur District – 613 007

¶11

Mr. R. Thirumurthy, S/o Mr. Ramasamy No. 3/4 3^rd cross, East Sivagami Nagar Extn. Verakeralam, Coimbatore – 41 007

¶12

¶13

Mr. T. Sathishkumar S/o Thirumurthy No.166, Dalegarth way, Milton Keynew MK 107BR United Kingdom …Defendants

¶14

ORDERS ON FULL SATISFACTION MEMO FILED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶15

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.1,82,77,876/- together with further interest from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale schedule mentioned properties.

¶16

In this the defendants have been set ex-parte on 12.12.2023 and the IA Dy No.2493/2025 filed by Petitioners / Defendants seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 12.12.2023 made in TA No.287/2022 in respect of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and restore the defendants to contest the case was also dismissed by this Tribunal by its order dated 06.11.2025.

¶17

While so, the applicant bank has full satisfaction memo vide Dy. No.6456 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025 stating therein that the applicant bank has realized / recovered a sum of Rs.2,09,61,240/- being a sum of Rs.1,16,00,000/- realized through sale of the Item No.1 of Schedule ‘A’ to the OA ( out of which a sum of Rs.1,14,61,240/- credited to the loan

¶18

¶19

account and balance surplus amount of Rs.1,38,760/- remains with the bank) and a sum of Rs.95,00,000/- realized by releasing Item No. II of Schedule ‘A’ to OA and prayed for recording full satisfaction of the OA claim.

¶20

The party-in-person, Mr. Karuppiah Kathiresan, the 3^rd defendant claiming to be the Managing Partner of the 1^st defendant has filed an objection memo to the full satisfaction memo filed by the applicant bank. It is stated that the full satisfaction memo does not bear the seal and signature of the deponent, no statement of accounts along with certificate under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act is enclosed along with the memo, no appropriation statement for Rs.1.16 crores realized has been given and also raising certain irregularities relating to the sale of the secured asset. It is also stated that the applicant has suppressed the fact of subsidy due under MSME Schemes, non-adjustment of MCLR reductions etc. It is also stated that the sum of Rs.158 lakhs voluntarily deposited by the defendants in the appeal pending before DRAT on 25.6.2025 is also suppressed. The defendants also questioned regarding the valuation of the property.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant Bank and the party-in-person, the 3^rd defendant. Perused the records.

¶22

Since the defendants have already been set ex parte and the application

¶23

seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 12.12.2023 filed by the

¶24

¶25

objector is also dismissed by order of this Tribunal dated 6.11.2025, the objections raised by the defendants are not maintainable. Moreover, the objections raised relate to alleged irregularities in service of statements of accounts, appropriation of amounts, and issues arising from SARFAESI proceedings. Such objections cannot be entertained at this stage, especially when no adjudication has yet taken place and the applicant itself reports full satisfaction of its claim. Further, the issues relating to SARFAESI measures cannot be examined in this O.A.

¶26

In nut shell, the O.A. was filed for recovery of the Bank’s dues. Once the Applicant Bank certifies that its claim stands fully satisfied, this Tribunal is of the view that nothing survives in this case for adjudication in this O.A.

¶27

Accordingly, the full satisfaction memo filed by the applicant bank is taken on record. The same is perused which is dated 16.09.2025 and is duly signed by the Authorized signatory and Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank. It is seen that the applicant bank has filed this full satisfaction memo upon realization / recovery of a sum of Rs.2,09,61,240/- and that the bank is fully satisfied with the claim.

¶28

In view of the foregoing, the TA is disposed as settled outside the Tribunal. Since, it is contended that there is no stay or any other litigation pending,

¶29

¶30

the original documents if any may be returned upon proper

¶31

acknowledgement.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶34

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 21^st day of November, 2025)

¶35

City Union Bank Limited v. Gelind Tech Consultants

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Gelind Tech Consultants

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

State Bank of India versus Pradeep Kumar Aich

M/s Idbi Bank Ltd., versus Mr. K. Raja Durai

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Sivakumar. E

Ravichandran versus Indian Bank

A Ravichandran versus Indian Bank

M/s City Union Bank Limited versus M/s Mgm Granites