Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Indravathy Sudalaimani

DRT17 Mar 2026OA/294/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held that an Original Application is maintainable when loan documents were executed at the Egmore branch within the territorial jurisdiction. Execution forms an integral part of the cause of action under Section 19(1)(c) of the RDB Act, 1993, overriding a previous view that mere sanction was insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Overruled the Registry's objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and held the Original Application to be maintainable.

Union Bank of India versus Indravathy Sudalaimani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 17^th day of March, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

NDN(OA) No.381 of 2026

¶5

Union Bank of India CAPS Branch, Egmore (Now Corporate Business Center Branch) Represented by its Assistant General Manager 2^nd Floor, Union Bank Bhavan 139-Prakasam Salai, Broadway Chennai – 600 109

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Indravathy Sudalaimani (Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Muthurajan Prop. of M/s SIV Traders) W/o Late Mr. Sudalaimani No.46, Nehru High Road BV Nagar, Alandur, Nanganallur Kancheepuram – 600 061

¶9

Mrs. M. Nithya W/o Late Mr. S. Muthurajan (Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Muthurajan Prop. of M/s SIV Traders) N0.29, Ground Floor, Medavakkam Main Road Keelkattalai, Chennai – 600 117

¶10

Also at No.46, Nehru High Road BV Nagar, Alandur, Nanganallur Kancheepuram – 600 061

¶11

…Defendants

¶12

¶13

ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY

¶14

The case is placed before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability.

¶15

The Registry of this Tribunal has observed as follows: -

¶16

1. (i) Under Sec. 19(1)(a) “where the branch or any other office of the bank is maintaining as account in which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being” as per statement of accounts and Para iii of jurisdiction the account is presently being maintained at Corporate Business Centre, Broadway Branch, Chennai.

¶17

(ii) Under Sec. 19(1)(b) “the defendant at the time of making the application resides” here the defendants are residing at Nanganallur and Medavakkam.

¶18

2. In both of the above provision the jurisdiction does not come under jurisdiction of DRT-II and hence returned.

¶19

3. Counsel for applicant replied the jurisdiction will arise under section 19(c) clearly states that “the cause of action, wholly or in part arise where the loan and loan documents are sanctioned and executed in Egmore jurisdiction. So the jurisdiction falls under DRT-II Chennai.

¶20

4. In this regard, attention is sought to order of this Hon‟ble Tribunal in order NDN(OA)/1395/2025 (Flat „A‟) where in it has been held that mere sanction of loan in an office of the bank which is located in the territorial jurisdiction does not by itself constitute a sufficient cause of action for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act.

¶21

¶22

Hence, submitted to decide judicially whether the filing of OA is maintainable please.”

¶23

Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the loan was sanctioned by Egmore Branch of the bank and the loan documents are also executed at Egmore, which are all well within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel submits that since a part of the cause of action is within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the OA.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel.

¶25

This Tribunal has carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel and the note of the Registry. It is pertinent to note that the Hon‟ble Tribunal in Order No. NDN(OA)/1395/2025 (Flat „A‟) has observed that mere sanction of a loan at a branch located within the territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal would not by itself constitute a sufficient cause of action to invoke jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act.

¶26

However, in the present case, the applicant has not only contended that the loan was sanctioned at Egmore Branch but has also stated that the loan documents were executed at the said branch. Execution of loan documents forms an integral part of the transaction giving rise to the debt and therefore constitutes a material and essential part of the cause of action.

¶27

¶28

The expression “cause of action” under Section 19(1)(c) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 includes every fact which would be necessary for the applicant to prove in order to obtain a decree or order. Sanction of the loan coupled with execution of loan documents within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal constitutes a part of the cause of action.

¶29

In view of the above circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal and therefore the present Original Application is maintainable before this Tribunal under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act.

¶30

Hence the following: -

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Accordingly, the objection raised by the Registry regarding territorial jurisdiction is overruled. The Original Application is held to be maintainable before this Tribunal. The Registry is directed to number the OA, if the same is otherwise found to be in order.

¶33

Sd/(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 17^th day of March, 2026)

¶35

Union Bank of India v. Indravathy Sudalaimani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Indravathy Sudalaimani

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

Canara Bank versus M s Laika Company

Challani Ranka Jewellery versus Indian Overseas Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus S Maheswara Rao

Punjab National Bank versus M s Mayas Beauty and Wellness Centre

Paneer Ramachandran versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus M Madhavan