Remanded

State Bank of India v. Metamorphosis Brewing Private Limited

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/318/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an interim application seeking attachment before judgment. It directed respondents to furnish security of Rs.42,40,482/- within 15 days or face attachment of scheduled property to secure the bank's dues of over two crores.

What did the court decide?

Directions to show cause why security of Rs.42,40,482/- should not be furnished within 15 days; conditional attachment of scheduled property ordered.

State Bank of India versus Metamorphosis Brewing Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IA No.1805/24 in OA 318/24

¶2

27.04.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 27^th day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. No.1805 of 2024 in O.A. No. 318 of 2024

¶8

State Bank of India, SME Branch, Pondicherry PB No.105, 27, Kamarajar Salai, Pondicherry - 605011 Represented by its Chief Manager.

¶9

....Petitioner/Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s.Metamorphosis Brewing Private Limited

¶12

Represented by its Director,

¶13

Prema Mary Josephine

¶14

2nd Floor, Anbalaya Apartments,

¶15

Lakshmi Nagar 1^st Street,

¶16

Chinayanpet Saram,

¶17

Pondicherry - 605 013.

¶18

Prema Mary Josephine

¶19

W/o.Nirmal Kumar

¶20

2nd Floor, Anbalaya Apartments, Lakshmi Nagar 1st Street, Chinayanpet Saram, Pondicherry - 605 013.

¶21

Joe Preetam N Tirouvanjiam S/o.Nirmal Kumar 2nd Floor, Anbalaya Apartments, Lakshmi Nagar 1st Street, Chinayanpet Saram, Pondicherry – 605 013.

¶22

Pio Jeetender

¶23

S/o.Nirmal Kumar 1003-1333 South Park Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada- B3J 2k9.

¶24

IA No.1805/24 in OA 318/24

¶25

27.04.2026

¶26

¶27

Eat At First Sight Private Limited No.1, Anbalaya Apartments, Lakshmi Nagar 1st Street, Chinayanpet Saram, Pondicherry - 605 013. ....Respondents/Defendants

¶28

: - ORDER ON IA NO.1805 of 2024 - :

¶29

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking for recovery of money due from Defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,22,40,482/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Two

¶30

only) repayable together with further interest and costs.

¶31

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.1805/2025 with affidavit of the Chief Manager of applicant bank, praying to direct the respondents/defendants to furnish security for the sum of Rs.42,40,482/-, and in the event of the respondents/defendants failing to furnish security as directed by this Tribunal, pass an order of attachment before judgment of the schedule mentioned property, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶32

In the affidavit filed along with IA, it is submitted that the above OA is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,22,24,104/- due and payable by the respondents/defendants as on 21.07.2024 under a term loan and cash credit facility availed by the 1^st respondent/defendant. This petition is filed seeking attachment of a flat of an area of 934 square feet bearing flat No.A3, 2nd floor, 1st Cross Street, Plot Nos.9 and 10, Lakshmi Nagar, together with 1/10th undivided share, that is, 360 square feet or 33.45

¶33

IA No.1805/24 in OA 318/24

¶34

¶35

27.04.2026

¶36

square meters out of the land of an area of 3600 square feet or 33.57 square meters comprised in Cadastre No.1326, RS No.141/3 of Saram village, Uzhavarkarai Municipality, within the Sub-registration district of Uzhavarkarai, Registration district of Pondicherry, more fully described in the schedule to the IA, valued at Rs.55,00,000/- belonging to one of the guarantors by name Mr.Nirmal Kumar Regis Tiruvanjiam, who died subsequently leaving behind the respondents/defendants 2 to 4 as his legal heirs, who inherited the schedule property.

¶37

It is further submitted that the 1^st respondent/defendant is a private limited company engaged in the business of Mlerobremery (Be) and availed a term loan facility of Rs.1,89,00,000/- to the petitioner/applicant, sanctioned vide letter of arrangement dated 23.09.2022. The respondent/defendants 2 to 5 are the guarantors for the above facility. The respondents/defendants executed the necessary documents on 23.09.2022 and thereafter the 1st respondent/defendant availed the said facility. Further, at the request of defendants, cash credit facility of Rs.11,00,000/was sanctioned along with the existing term loan facility of Rs.1,89,00,000/- vide Arrangement Letter dated 24.02.2023. The 1^st respondent/defendant executed a supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 24.02.2023 and the respondents/ defendants 2 to 5 executed a guarantee agreement dated 24.02.2023 towards these facilities.

¶38

The 1^st respondent/defendant once again approached the applicant

¶39

IA No.1805/24 in OA 318/24

¶40

27.04.2026

¶41

¶42

bank during September 2023 seeking further financial facilities. Accordingly along with the term loan facility, now reduced to Rs.1,74,00,000, an enhanced cash credit limit of Rs.50,00,000/- was sanctioned to the 1st respondent/defendant vide letter of arrangement dated 06.10.2023. The 2^nd to 5^th respondents/defendants and one Mr. Nirmal Kumar Regis Tiruvanjiam are the guarantors for repayment of the dues under the said facilities availed by the 1st respondent/defendant. The 1st respondent/defendant executed a supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation on 06.10.2023 in favour of the petitioner/applicant bank in respect of the aforesaid facilities. The 2nd to the 5th respondents/defendants and Mr.Nirmal Kumar Regis Tiruvanjiam executed guarantee agreement on 06.10.2023 in favour of the petitioner/applicant bank in respect of the above facility. The respondents/defendants failed to pay the dues and the accounts became NPA on 30.04.2024. The petitioner/applicant therefore issued a notice dated 03.05.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the respondents/defendants demanding repayment. The respondents/defendants neither replied to this notice nor paid the amount as demanded. The petitioner/applicant thereafter issued a possession notice dated 08.07.2024 under Section 13(4) to the defendants. As per the accounts of the petitioner/applicant bank, the respondents/defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,58,829/- towards the term loan and a sum of Rs.51,65,275/towards the cash credit facility as on 21.07.2024 totalling to Rs.2,22,24,104/- together with interest at 13.40% per annum with monthly

¶43

IA No.1805/24 in OA 318/24

¶44

27.04.2026

¶45

¶46

rests from 22.07.2024 till payment in full.

¶47

The petitioner/applicant is apprehensive that the

¶48

respondents/defendants 2 to 4 are likely to dispose off the schedule property with the intention of obstructing and delaying recovery proceedings initiated against them. If the respondents/defendants 2 to 4 are allowed to do so, the petitioner/applicant will be put to grave and irreparable loss and hardship and will find it difficult to recover the dues. Hence, the respondents/defendants may be directed to furnish security for a sum of Rs.42,40,482/-, ordering interim conditional attachment of the schedule property and in the event of the respondents/defendants failing to furnish security as directed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, to pass an order of attachment before judgment of the schedule property, pending, disposal of the OA.

¶49

Heard and perused the records produced along with the IA.

¶50

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that the respondents may alienate or dispose of or create third-party interest on the properties morefully described in the schedule to the IA.

¶51

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.2,22,24,104/-, which is a colossal sum of money. 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.

¶52

IA No.1805/24 in OA 318/24

¶53

27.04.2026

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

“ 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

¶57

(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,

¶58

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.

¶59

(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

¶60

IA No.1805/24 in OA 318/24

¶61

27.04.2026

¶62

¶63

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.”

¶64

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

¶65

:ORDER:

¶66

In the circumstances pleaded, respondents are hereby directed to show cause as to why they should not furnish security to the tune of Rs.42,40,482/- 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.

¶67

Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the IA schedule mentioned property to the extent of Rs.42,40,482/- is hereby ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank.

¶68

The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Concerned

¶69

Sub Registrar Office/ Village Officer for necessary action and for records.

¶70

IA Schedule property shall form part of this order.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

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

¶73

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

¶74

27^th day of April, 2026)

¶75

IA No.1805/24 in OA 318/24

¶76

¶77

27.04.2026

¶78

IA SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶79

All that flat of an area of 934 square feet bearing flat No.A3, 2nd floor, 1st Cross Street, Plot Nos.9 and 10, Lakshmi Nagar, together with 1/10th undivided share, that is, 360 square feet or 33.45 square meters out of the land of an area of 3600 square feet or 33.57 square meters comprised in Cadastre No.1326, RS No.141/3 of Saram village, Uzhavarkarai Municipality, within the Sub-registration district of Uzhavarkarai, Registration district of Pondicherry.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

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

State Bank of India v. Metamorphosis Brewing Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Metamorphosis Brewing Private Limited

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

Laksha Hospitals versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

Mr R Suresh Kumar versus Karur Vysya Bank

State Bank of India versus The Opera International

Bank of Baroda versus Raj

Vanasundari Ramiah versus Assets Care

Rbl Bank Limited versus Ram Charan Company Private Limited