Allowed

Canara Bank v. Cresent Enteprises

DRT8 Jun 2026OA/117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an interim application for temporary attachment of a residential property owned by the second respondent. Directed the respondent to furnish security within 15 days, failing which the property would be permanently attached to secure the bank's claim of interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to furnish security of Rs. 21,62,606.48p within 15 days, failing which the scheduled property shall be attached.

Canara Bank versus Cresent Enteprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 08^th day of June, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

I.A. No.630 of 2024 in O.A. No.117 of 2024

¶6

Canara Bank Kasturba Nagar Branch, No.4, 1s Main Road, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020 Represented by its Manager ...Petitioner/Applicant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

M/s Crescent Enterprises Represented By its Sole Propreitor Mr.A.Alameen Buhari No.46, Ibrahim Shahib Main Road, Mannady, Chennai 600001

¶9

Mr.K. Alameen Buhari S/o Kadev Sultan, Old No.45, New No.10. Saiva Muthaiah Mudali Street, Mannady, Chennai 600001

¶10

...Respondents/ Defendants

¶11

: - ORDER ON IA NO.630 of 2024 - :

¶12

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the

¶13

Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendants in a sum of Rs.21,62,606.48p (Twenty One Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Six

¶14

Hundred and Six and Forty Eight Paise only) as on 29.02.2024 repayable together with further interest and costs.

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.630/2024 with affidavit of the Senior Manager, Kasturba Nagar

¶16

Branch of applicant bank, praying to order for attachment before judgment

¶17

Uploaded on 08.06.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶18

¶19

in respect of Schedule mentioned property belonging to 2^nd defendant till the disposal of the above OA.

¶20

In the affidavit filed along with IA, it is submitted by the applicant bank that the defendants have availed OD Limit from the Applicant Bank under CGTMSE and against hypothecation of stocks and book debts. However, subsequent to availing of loan, the Defendants 1 and 2 committed default in repaying the dues and allowed the loan account to be classified as Non Performing Asset as on 12.09.2023 and the hypothecation of stocks & book debts are not realizable by the Applicant Bank. Inspite of several demands, defendants did not come forward to repay the dues. Hence the applicant bank had filed OA No.117/2024 before this Tribunal for recovery of its dues from defendants.

¶21

Though the credit limit is covered under CGTMSE Scheme, the Applicant Bank has to take necessary steps to realize the loan amount and the OA claim has to be repaid in proportionate under the said scheme. The Applicant Bank has identified an immovable property owned by the 2^nd Defendant, who is the sole proprietor of 1^st Defendant, under a Sale Deed dated 14.02.2022, Document No.173/2022 in respect of property morefully detailed in the schedule to the IA. Hence the present IA is filed for Attachment Before Judgment towards securing and realization of OA claim as there is no immovable Property offered by the defendants. The defendants are having sufficient means to repay the loans and therefore the Applicant bank will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and the

¶22

Uploaded on 08.06.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶23

¶24

petitioner/applicant will not be able to recover its dues, if this IA for Attachment Before Judgment is not considered by this Tribunal. Hence the present application is filed for attachment before judgment of the property morefully detailed in the Schedule to the IA, till the disposal of the OA.

¶25

Heard and perused the records produced along with the IA.

¶26

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that the 2^nd respondent / 2^nd defendant may alienate or dispose of or create thirdparty interest on the property morefully described in the schedule to the IA.

¶27

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.21,62,606.48p, which is a colossal sum of money. The 2^nd defendant despite receipt of summons in the OA, chose to remain ex-parte. As the outstanding amount is unsecured, 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.

¶28

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

¶29

“ 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

¶30

Uploaded on 08.06.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶31

¶32

frustrate the execution of any order for the recovery of debt that may

¶33

be passed against him

¶34

(i)is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or (ii)is about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; or (iii)is likely to cause any damage or mischief to the property or affect its value by misuse or creating third party interest,

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the

¶38

Uploaded on 08.06.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶39

¶40

2^nd respondent / 2^nd defendant in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule to the petition, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶41

:ORDER:

¶42

In the circumstances pleaded, 2^nd respondent/ 2^nd defendant

¶43

is hereby directed to show cause as to why he should not furnish security to the tune of OA claim in a sum of Rs.21,62,606.48p claimed in the O.A. within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to order attachment the IA schedule mentioned property to answer the OA claim herein.

¶44

Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the IA schedule mentioned property to the extent of OA claim of Rs.21,62,606.48p together with further interest, is hereby ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank.

¶45

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

¶46

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

08^th day of June, 2026)

¶51

Uploaded on 08.06.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶52

¶53

IA SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶54

SCHEDULE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR ATTACHMENT

¶55

All that piece and parcel of western portion of building consisting of Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor, Third Floor having built up area of 3544 Sq constructed on the land measuring an extent of 886 Sq Ft., out of total extent of 1772 Sq Ft together with ½ share in the stair cases and other common service areas, bearing Old Door No.99 Part, New No.99/8, Saint Xavier Street, (previously Pedariar Street) Chennai 600001 comprised in O.S No.7684, R.S No.2285 Part, C.A No.1832/2013, R.S No 2285/2, Bock No.20, V.O.C Nagar Division, Muthiyalpet Village, Font- Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District and thereabouts bounded:-

¶56

North By: Masilamani Mudaliar's House in O.S No.7685 and R.S No.2284

¶57

South By: Saint Xavier Street, R.S No.2303

¶58

East By: Property belonging to K.Rasheed now owned by Mrs.A.Mubin RS No.2285 Part, as per Patta RS No.2285/1

¶59

West By: Pedariar Koil Street, R.S No.2104

¶60

And situate within the Registration District of Chennai North and Sub Registration District of Sowcarpet.

¶61

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

¶62

Uploaded on 08.06.2026 at 16:00 hours

Canara Bank v. Cresent Enteprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Cresent Enteprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ajula Krishnan

State Bank of India versus Vivek

State Bank of India versus Padma Prasad

Union Bank of India versus Mrs R Gayathri and another

State Bank of India versus Jagenathan

Bank of Baroda versus Lefit Fitness Studio