Disposed

Bank of Baroda v. Koilraj

DRT3 Jun 2026OA/1249/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal directed respondents to furnish security for outstanding dues or face attachment of unencumbered property. The bank's mortgage asset was sold via SARFAESI proceedings leaving a shortfall. The court applied Section 19(13)(A) of the RDB Act to prevent dissipation of assets.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to show cause and furnish security within 15 days; conditional attachment of the schedule property underway if security not furnished.

Bank of Baroda versus Koilraj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 03^rd day of June, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

I.A. No.1100 of 2026 in O.A. No. 1249 of 2025

¶6

Bank of Baroda

¶7

RO Stressed Asset Recovery Branch No.90, C.P. Ramaswamy Road, Sriram Colony Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018 Rep. by Chief Manager

¶8

….Petitioner / Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Mr.C.Koilraj S/o Shelliah Nadar No.20, New No.1 School 2nd Street, Virugambakkam

¶11

Chennai- 600 092

¶12

Mrs.K.Vijayarani W/o C.Koilraj No.20, New No.1 School 2nd Street, Virugambakkam Chennai- 600 092

¶13

Mr.Anand Amirtharaj s/o Mr.Koil Raj S No.20, New No.1 School 2nd Street, Virugambakkam Chennai- 600 092 …Respondents/ Defendants

¶14

: - ORDER ON IA NO.1100 of 2024 - :

¶15

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the

¶16

Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendants jointly

¶17

and severally to pay a sum of Rs.32,46,241/- (Rupees Thirty Two

¶18

Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Forty One only) repayable together with further interest and costs.

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.1100/2024 with affidavit of the Chief Manager, ROSARB, Chennai of

¶20

¶21

applicant bank, praying to order interim attachment of property mentioned in schedule and direct the SRO, Virugambakkam not to effect any registrations or additional charges on the property mentioned in Schedule till disposal of the case.

¶22

In the affidavit filed along with IA, it is submitted by the applicant bank that the respondents 1 and 2 had availed Housing Loan of Rs.27 Lakhs from the Applicant Bank for purchase of OA house at at “SRI RAM NAGAR” Perumalpattu Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District. The 3^rd defendant stood as guarantor for the loan facility availed by 1^st and 2^nd defendants. The Defendants had executed various documents and agreements in favour of the applicant agreeing to repay the loan in 180 Equated Monthly Instalments as per the terms and conditions of sanction. To secure the loan limit, the 1^st Defendant had mortgaged the property purchased out of the loan as security for the Housing Loan facility availed by the Defendants and had executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 03.08.2016 registered as Doc.no.8094/2016 with SRO, Thiruvallur.

¶23

The applicant bank submits that subsequent to availing of loan, the Defendants committed default in repaying the dues and allowed the loan account to be classified as Non Performing Asset as on 29.05.2024. Inspite of several demands, defendants did not come forward to repay the dues. Hence the applicant bank had filed OA No.1249/2025 for recovery of its dues from defendants. The Applicant Bank through its Authorized Officer had initiated SARFAESI proceedings to enforce the security and the

¶24

¶25

property mortgaged in the account was sold for an amount of Rs.25.30 lakhs on 12.11.2025 and there is shortfall of Rs.7 lakhs plus interest between the value of the property realized and the claim amount in the O.A. which is now not backed by any security and hence difficult for recovery.

¶26

It has now come to the notice of the Petitioner that the 1^st Respondent /Defendant is owning unencumbered property as mentioned in the Schedule which he has acquired under a Sale Deed dated 25/04/18986 registered as Doc.no.820/1986 with SRO, Virugambakkam. The applicant bank apprehends that the Respondent may try and dispose of the said property or create encumbrance on the same, in case the same is not attached and it would cause serious prejudice and damage would be caused to the interest of the Petitioner who deals in public money. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents if the said attachment is allowed as there are legitimate dues of over Rs.7 lakhs to be paid by the Defendants which would be much higher by the time the O.A. is decided and the applicant bank has a realistic probability of succeeding in the O.A. The estimated value of the property is about Rs.75 lakhs on date.

¶27

The applicant bank submits that it is therefore just and necessary that an order attaching the schedule property before judgment of is passed. Unless an order attaching the schedule property is passed, the petitioner/applicant will not be able to recover its dues and thus will be put

¶28

¶29

to grave and irreparable loss and hardship. Now the balance claim amount in the above O.A. is unsecured. Hence the present application is filed praying to order attachment of the property mentioned in the Schedule to the IA, till the disposal of the OA.

¶30

Heard and perused the records produced along with the IA.

¶31

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that the 1^st respondent / 1^st defendant may alienate or dispose of or create thirdparty interest on the properties morefully described in the schedule to the IA.

¶32

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.32,46,241/- which is a colossal sum of money. As the balance 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.

¶33

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

¶34

“ 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

¶35

¶36

(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, 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.

¶37

(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.”

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

:ORDER:

¶41

In the circumstances pleaded, respondents/ defendants is hereby directed to show cause as to why they should not furnish security to the tune of OA claim in a sum of Rs.32,46,241/- (less Rs.25.30 lakhs already realised by way of sale under SARFAESI Act) 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.

¶42

Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the IA schedule mentioned property to the extent of OA claim of Rs.32,46,241/(less Rs.25.30 lakhs already realised by way of sale under SARFAESI Act) together with further interest, is hereby ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank.

¶43

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

¶44

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

03^rd day of June, 2026)

¶49

¶50

IA SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶51

All that piece and parcel of land with building thereon at Door no.129/1A, measuring 1855 sq.ft situated at Virugambakkam Villate, Arcot Road, Chennai, with the Registration District of Chennai South and Sub Registration District of Virugambakkam,

¶52

Measuring

¶53

North to South on Eastern side : 50 feet North to South on Western side: 56 feet East to West on Northern side: 30 feet East to West on Southern side: 40 feet

¶54

Bounded on the :

¶55

North By : House belonging to Chinnakannu South By : Arcot Road, East By : Aranganathan Street West By : House of Thangammal Ammal

¶56

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

Bank of Baroda v. Koilraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Koilraj

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

Canara Bank versus Shefali Flacila

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Ms Bindu Rao Design Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Pratheep

V Prathap and another versus Yes Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Anand Amritha Raj

M s Sri Sri Venkateshwar Educational Trust versus Reliance Commercial Finance Limited