Disposed

State Bank of India v. N Senthilkumar and G Aruna

DRT12 Mar 2026OA/353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal granting an order of conditional attachment before judgment for the second respondent's properties to secure bank dues while directing the respondents to furnish security within 15 days or face property attachment.

What did the court decide?

Conditional attachment of specific properties belonging to the second respondent to the extent of the outstanding dues, and direction to show cause/security submission within 15 days.

State Bank of India versus N Senthilkumar and G Aruna — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

I.A. No.2740 of 2025 in O.A. No. 353 of 2024

¶6

State bank of India SARB II Branch Chennai First Floor, 44, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

Mr.N.Senthilkumar

¶10

No. 5/180, Rathinamal kadu, Vadachennimalai via, Sadhasivapuram, Athur, Salem,

¶11

Chennai – 636 121.

¶12

G.Aruna, D/o M.K.Dhanusu No. 5/180, Rathinamal kadu, Vadachennimalai via, Sadhasivapuram, Athur, Salem, Chennai – 636 121.

¶13

Also residing at: Plot No. 2, Flat No.S1, Second Floor, Jega nagar, Pallikaranai, Near Narayanapuram Bus stop, Kancheepuram, Chennai - 600 100 ….Defendants

¶14

: - ORDER ON IA NO. 2740 of 2025 in OA No.353 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.1,11,55,538/- (Rupees One Crore

¶18

¶19

Eleven Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Eight

¶20

only) repayable together with further interest and costs.

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.2740/2025 with affidavit of the City Case Officer, SARB-II, Chennai, praying to pass an order of attachment before judgment in respect of the properties as detailed in the schedule to the IA, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶22

It is the case of applicant bank that the Respondents / Defendants availed two Housing Loans to the tune of Rs.52,77,000/- and Rs.35,49,000/- from the applicant bank, after executing necessary loan and security documents in favour of applicant bank. For the due repayment of the loans, the respondents / defendants had mortgaged the immovable properties being the house property purchased out of the loan funds availed, in favour of applicant bank.

¶23

It is submitted that the subsequent to availing of lona, the respondents neither repaid the loan amounts, except for a few repayments, which was not sufficient for maintaining the loan account. Hence the loan account was declared as NPA on 27.03.2023 and the defendants are due and payable to the applicant bank a sum of Rs.1,11,55,538/- together with future interest. Inspite of several demands, defendants did not come forward to repay the dues. Hence the applicant bank had filed the OA No.353/2024, for recovery of its dues from defendants.

¶24

¶25

It is further submitted by the applicant bank that the value of immovable properties offered by the defendants towards security for the loan availed comes to around Rs.46,56,000/-. It was given to understand that the 2^nd respondent is owning two immovable properties, which are morefully detailed in the schedule to the IA. The said properties are transferred by way of Gift Deed by 1^st defendant to 2^nd defendant during the year 2021 and 2022 respectively.

¶26

The applicant bank understands that the 2^nd respondent is making attempts to dispose off or otherwise further encumber the petition schedule property, in order to deprive the Petitioner Bank the fruits of the Recovery Certificate that may ultimately be granted in favour of the applicant bank and the applicant bank may not be in a position to recover the Certificate amount which may ultimately be issued in favour of the Bank. As the realizable value of the mortgaged property would not satisfy the outstanding dues of the applicant bank, the present application is filed praying to order attachment before judgment in respect of the properties morefully detailed in the schedule to the IA, till the disposal of the OA.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.1,11,55,538/- which is a colossal sum of money. Considering the amount of claim involved in this case and the balance of convenience, the present IA has to be considered 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.

¶31

As per Section 19 (13)(A) & 15 of RDB Act,

¶32

“ 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

¶33

(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

¶34

(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

¶36

¶37

of debt, or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security.

¶38

(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.

¶39

15. The Tribunal may also in the order direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property specified under Sub-Section (13)”

¶40

As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the 2^nd respondent 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, the respondents are hereby directed to show cause as to why they should not furnish security to the tune of OA claim in a sum of Rs.1,11,55,538/-, less the realisable value of the mortgaged properties, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to attach the IA

¶43

¶44

schedule mentioned property belonging to 2^nd respondent to answer the OA claim herein.

¶45

Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the petition schedule mentioned properties to the extent of OA claim of Rs.1,11,55,538/less the realisable value of the mortgaged properties, together with further interest is hereby ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank.

¶46

The Registry is directed to issue show cause notice to the respondents and also communicate this Order to the Concerned Sub Registrar Office/ Village Officer for necessary action and for records.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

12^th day of March, 2026)

¶52

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY - I

¶53

Salem Registration District Thalaivasal Sub Registration District Thalaivasal, Thalaivasal Taluk in Sarvai Village Patta No: 486 Survey No. 19/1 measuring 4 Acres and 20 Cents bounded by:

¶54

South – Panchayat Road running East to West

¶55

¶56

West - Land owned by Balakumar S/o Subbu Gounder

¶57

East -Survey No.20/1

¶58

North - Survey No.13/2

¶59

An extent of Acre 1 and 3 cents of land bounded as above including passage

¶60

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY – II

¶61

Salem Registration District Thalaivasal Sub Registration District Thalaivasal Thalaivasal Taluk in Sarvai Village Patta No. 485 Survey No. 20/1 measuring Acres and 68 Cents bounded by:

¶62

South - Land owned by Mohankumar and his successors

¶63

West - Land owned-by Kandasamy

¶64

East - Land owned by S.No. 13/2 & S.No, 19/1В

¶65

North - Panchayat Road

¶66

An extent of Acre 1 and 40.25 cents of land bounded as above including passage.

¶67

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

State Bank of India v. N Senthilkumar and G Aruna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. N Senthilkumar and G Aruna

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

Kathiravan alias Amalraj versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

V. Kannan versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus K. N. Rajendran

Rajesh Elanchezian versus Punjab National Bank

Jayamaran versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Sunil Singh versus Union Bank of India