Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. S Bhaskar

DRT1 Jul 2025TA/289/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed interim applications filed by Bank of Baroda directing the shareholding respondent to show cause regarding furnishing security and restraining another bank from releasing title deeds of a disputed property to secure pending dues.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to furnish security of Rs.50,66,534/- within 15 days or face attachment of scheduled property; conditional attachment ordered. Second respondent directed not to release t

Bank of Baroda versus S Bhaskar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IAs 334/25 & 335/25 in TA 289/2023

¶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. Nos.334 of 2025 & 335 of 2025

¶8

¶9

T.A. No. 289 of 2023

¶10

Bank of Baroda Big Street Branch No.2, Bharathi Salai Big Street Chennai – 600 005 Rep. by its Branch Manager Now the account has been transferred to ROSARB Branch

¶11

….Applicant

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

Mr. S. Bhaskar S/o Sasi Plot No.5261, TNHB Ayapakkam Chennai – 600 077 Also No.4238, TNHB Ayapakkam Chennai – 600 077

¶14

…..Defendant

¶15

B. Sanjay S/o S. Bhaskar No.4238, TNHB Ayapakkam Chennai – 600 077 ….Proposed 1^st respondent HDFC Bank Limited Registered office at Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai – 400 013

¶16

And its Branch Office at First Floor, ITC Centre No.760, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002 ….Proposed 2^nd respondent

¶17

IAs 334/25 & 335/25 in TA 289/2023

¶18

01.07.2025

¶19

¶20

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶21

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. K. Radhakrishnamurthy

¶22

: - ORDER ON IA NOs.334 of 2025 & 335 of 2025 - :

¶23

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.93,00,454/- (Rupees Ninety Three Lakhs Four Hundred and Fifty Four only) together with further interest and costs.

¶24

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., I.A.No.334/2025 & 335/25 with affidavit of the Branch Manager of applicant bank, Sh. G. Premkumar, seeking for an order directing the proposed 2^nd defendant, not to release the title deeds mentioned in the MOD of the schedule property, without prior permission or intimation to this Tribunal and grant an order of injunction restraining the 1^st proposed respondent not to alienate the property to any third party and also not o dispose, create charge or encumbrance, settlement or sale or power of Attorney over the schedule property morefully described in the schedule to IA , pending disposal of the above OA.

¶25

It is submitted by applicant bank that it was given to understand that the defendant is heavily indebted and they are unable to pay his creditors and are trying to alienate the assets. The applicant bank had invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act and conducted E-auction sale of the secured asset on 20.06.2023 and one Mr.Thirumuthu Kumaran R has been declared as highest bidder, who had remitted the entire amount of

¶26

IAs 334/25 & 335/25 in TA 289/2023

¶27

¶28

01.07.2025

¶29

Rs.55,25,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the sale held on 20.06.2023. Sale certificate was also issued on 14.09.2023. In view of the auction sale, the original title deeds were handed over to the auction purchaser and accordingly a Part Satisfaction memo was filed before the Tribunal.

¶30

It is further submitted by the applicant bank that now there are no properties or securities available with the bank, while there is still an outstanding balance of Rs.50,66,534/- as on 10.01.2025 in the borrower’s loan account. The applicant bank came to know that the defendant has one more immovable property, morefully detailed in the schedule to IA, acquired from Tamil Nadu Housing Board through a Registered Deed of Sale dated 24.04.2009 and registered as Document No.2403/2009 on the file of SRO, Ambattur. Subsequently, the aforesaid property acquired by the defendant was alienated to his son, B. Sanjay (proposed 1^st respondent herein), through a registered settlement deed dated 29.09.2003 registered as Document No.13671 of 2023 in the office of SRO, Ambattur. Therefater, B. Sanjay, had availed a loan of Rs.50 lakhs from HDFC Bank Limited, proposed 2^nd respondent bank and also registered a Memorandum of deposit of Title Deeds vide Document No.14125 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023.

¶31

It is submitted by the applicant bank that the above actions were carried out with the intent to defeat the legitimate rights of the applicant for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.50,66,534/- and with a malafide

¶32

IAs 334/25 & 335/25 in TA 289/2023

¶33

01.07.2025

¶34

¶35

intention to defraud the applicant bank during the pendency of the trial. If the property is out of reach, applicant bank will not be able to recover the amounts in the event of a Recovery Certificate issued in favour of applicant bank. Hence the present applications are filed to direct the proposed 1^st respondent to furnish security to secure the claim amount of the petitioner bank, failing which to pass an order of attachment before judgment of the schedule mentioned non-mortgaged property and to grant an injunction restraining the proposed 1^st respondent not to alienate the property to any third party and also not to dispose, create charge or encumbrance, settlement or sale or power of attorney over the IA schedule property and also to direct the proposed 2^nd respondent not to release the title deeds mentioned in the MOD of schedule property, without prior permission of the Tribunal during the pendency of the TA.

¶36

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

¶37

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that proposed 1^st respondent 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 IAs are 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.

¶38

IAs 334/25 & 335/25 in TA 289/2023

¶39

01.07.2025

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

“ 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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

(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

¶48

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

¶49

IAs 334/25 & 335/25 in TA 289/2023

¶50

01.07.2025

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the proposed 1^st respondent in respect of the schedule mentioned in the schedule to the petition, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶54

:ORDER:

¶55

(i) In the circumstances pleaded, proposed 1^st respondent is hereby directed to show cause as to why he should not furnish security to the tune of Rs.50,66,534/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to attach the IA schedule mentioned property to answer the OA claim herein. Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the IA schedule mentioned property is ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank.

¶56

(ii) The proposed 2^nd respondent (HDFC Bank Limited) is directed

¶57

not to release the title deeds mentioned in the MOD of the IA schedule property, without prior permission or intimation to this Tribunal.

¶58

The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Concerned Sub Registrar Office/ Village Officer for necessary action and for records and also communicate copy of this order to the proposed 2^nd respondent, along with show cause notice to 1^st proposed respondent.

¶59

IAs 334/25 & 335/25 in TA 289/2023

¶60

01.07.2025

¶61

¶62

10 . IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

01^st day of July, 2025)

¶67

:- SCHEDULE -:

¶68

All that piece and parcel of the Land and Ground Floor and First Floor Building situated in Survey No.49 Part of AYYAPPAKKAM VILLAGE, Avadi Taluk, Thiruvallur District marked as Commercial Plot No.4238, in the sanctioned plan of Ambattur Phase I and II Scheme and Measuring 96.00 Sq. meter within the Registration District of North – Chennai and Sub-Registration District of Ambattur.

¶69

Bounded on the:

¶70

NORTH BY : 4.00 Meter Road

¶71

SOUTH BY : Plot No.4237

¶72

EAST BY : 7.20 Meter Road

¶73

NORTH BY : Plot No.4240 & 4239

¶74

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

Bank of Baroda v. S Bhaskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. S Bhaskar

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 Vayal Agri Trading Company

Yes Bank versus Vasantha

State Bank of India versus John Kennedy