Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. S Pet Industry

DRT6 Aug 2026OA/489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an interim application by City Union Bank seeking conditional attachment of respondent properties. The court directed respondents to furnish security; failure would result in property attachment to secure the bank's dues pending disposal of the main application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to show cause within 15 days to furnish security of Rs.45,77,145 less secured value; otherwise, attachment of properties in the schedule pending disposal of the main application.

City Union Bank Limited versus S Pet Industry — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 06^th day of August, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

I.A. No.2573 of 2024 in O.A. No.489 of 2025

¶6

CITY UNION BANK LTD 1-B, Roja Nagar, Madhavaram, Red Hills High Road, Bazaar Street, Chennai, 600 060 Represented by its Branch Manager ….Petitioner/Applicant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

M/s. S Pet Industry Represented by its Partners P. Seethal Kumar and S. Renu 1/95, Perumal Koil Street Vadaperumbakkam Chennai -600 060

¶9

Mr. P. Seethal Kumar, (Borrower of S Pet Industry and Proprietor / Mortgagor of V.K Pet Industry) S/o. Prakash Chand No.16/37, Seshachalam Street, Saidapet,

¶10

Chennai – 600 015

¶11

Mrs. S. Renu, (Borrower of S Pet Industry and Co -Borrower / Mortgagor of V.K.Pet Industry) W/o. Mr.P. Seethal Kumar No.16/37, Seshachalam Street, Saidapet,

¶12

Chennai – 600 015

¶13

M/s.V.K. Pet Industry Represented by its Proprietor P. Seethal Kumar 1/1A, Perumal Koil Street, Vadaperumbakkam, Madhavaram, Chennai - 600 060

¶14

…Respondents/ Defendants

¶15

¶16

: - ORDER ON IA NO.2573 of 2025 - :

¶17

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.45,77,145/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs

¶18

Seventy Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only) repayable together with further interest and costs.

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.2573/2025 with affidavit of the Branch Manager, Madhavaram Branch of the applicant bank, praying to direct the Respondents / Defendants to furnish security equal to the shortfall in value of the security as against the OA claim failing which grant an order of Attachment against the respondents / defendants in respect of Schedule A and B mentioned properties in the IA, pending disposal of the OA.

¶20

In the affidavit filed along with IA, it is submitted by the applicant bank that the respondents have availed CCOD limit to the tune of Rs.7.50 lakhs, which was enhanced from time to time and the defendants have executed various documents and agreements in favour of the applicant for repayment of the said facility.

¶21

It is submitted that the respondents 2 to 4 have mortgaged their immovable properties as security for the CCOD limit and had executed MOD dated 29.06.2018 registered as Doc. No.1318/2018, which was extended for the enhanced limits also.

¶22

It is further submitted that the present value of security available is

¶23

¶24

Rs.34,33,145/- which is much below the OA claim. There is no other security / collateral security for the loan. The Applicant has found that the 2^nd Respondent owns the properties morefully described in Schedule A and B to the IA, as evidenced by the Sale deeds and latest Encumbrance Certificate.

¶25

As per the transactions reflected in EC taken upto 03.06.2024, the 2^nd Respondent has mortgaged the above properties to one Mr. Vinoth Kumar for a loan amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs. The aggregate value of the properties being much more than the loan amount borrowed, the Applicant seeks attachment of these properties subject to pending dues, if any against the loan already borrowed by the 2^nd Respondent against these properties.

¶26

It is submitted that the applicant bank apprehends that the 2^nd Respondent / Defendant may dispose of these properties to frustrate the recovery process and the Applicant Bank will have no other assets to recover the dues. Hence the present application is filed praying to direct the respondents to furnish security equal to the shortfall in value of the security as against the OA claim, failing which to grant an order attachment in respect of the Schedule A and B mentioned properties, pending disposal of the OA.

¶27

Heard and perused the records produced along with the IA.

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.45,77,145/-, which is a colossal sum of money. The applicant bank submits that the value of the mortgaged property is only Rs.34,33,145/and the remaining portion of the claim is unsecured. The applicant bank apprehends that the 2^nd respondent may try and dispose of the said property or create encumbrance on the same, in case the same is not attached.

¶31

The records of the case reveals that the summons to defendants 1 and 4 returned as ‘left’, while summons to defendants 2 and 3 returned as ‘unclaimed’. Applicant bank had effected substituted service through newspaper publication. Consequently, the defendants were placed ex-parte on 06.08.2026. 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.

¶32

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

¶33

“ 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

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

(i)is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or

¶37

(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,

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(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.”

¶41

¶42

As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the 2^nd defendant / 2^nd respondent in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule to the petition, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

In the circumstances pleaded, respondents / defendants are hereby directed to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as to why they should not furnish security to the tune of Rs.45,77,145/- claimed in the O.A. (less the value of mortgaged property in the OA), failing which the IA schedule mentioned properties shall be attached to answer the OA claim herein.

¶45

Meanwhile, conditional attachment of the IA schedule mentioned properties to the extent of Rs.45,77,145/- claimed in the O.A. together with further interest (less the value of mortgaged property in the OA), is hereby ordered to secure the dues of the applicant bank, however subject to second charge of applicant bank as the Encumbrance Certificate produced by the applicant bank reflects the first charge in respect of one Mr. Vinoth Kumar, vide Mortgage Deed dated 28.09.2018 17.08.2022 registered as Document No. 4133/2018 before SRO, Gummidipoondi.

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

IA Schedule properties shall form part of this order.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

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

¶51

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 06^th day of August, 2026)

¶52

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶53

SCHEDULE A

¶54

Sale deed dated 23.11.2016 executed by Mr. Khaki and Mr. Raghu in favor of Mr. Seethal Kumar registered as a Document No. 4022/2016 in SRO Gummidipoondi.

¶55

Property Details:

¶56

All that piece and parcel of vacant Land situated at No.54, Opasamuthiram Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur Registration District, SRO Gummidipoondi, Registration district of Chennai-North.

¶57

Item-1:

¶58

Entire extent admeasuring Hectare 0.12.0 Ares or Acre 0.30 Cents of Maanavari Land in Survey No. 205/3

¶59

Item-2:

¶60

Entire extent admeasuring Hectare 0.19.5 Ares or Acre 0.36 Cents out of 0.48 Cents of Maanavari Land in Survey No. 205/4.

¶61

Boundaries:

¶62

North: - Angalamman Temple included in Survey No. 204

¶63

South - Land belonging to Mr. Vajravelu in Survey No. 208

¶64

¶65

East - The remaining Lands of sellers

¶66

West - Land mentioned in Item-1 situated in Survey No. 205/3.

¶67

The Total extent mentioned in the two items mentioned above being Acre 0.66 cents situated within the panchayat limits of Opasamuthiram and Gummidipoondi.

¶68

SCHEDULE B

¶69

Sale deed dated 03.04.2017 executed by Mr. Khaki and Mr. Raghu in favor of Mr. Seethal Kumar registered as a Document No.785 /2017 in SRO, Gumidipoondi.

¶70

All that piece and parcel of Vacant Land Situated at No. 54, Opasamuthiram, Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, SRO Gummidipoondi, Registration District of North Chennai.

¶71

Item-1:

¶72

Entire extent admeasuring Hectare 0.19.5 Ares or Acre 0.12 cents of Maanavari Land in survey No. 205/4.

¶73

Boundaries:

¶74

North: Angalamman temple included in Survey No. 204

¶75

South: Mr. Vajravelu's Land included in Survey No. 208

¶76

East: Item 2 Land which is a part of Survey No. 205/4

¶77

West: Land belonging to Mr. Seethal Kumar in Survey No.205/4

¶78

Item-2:

¶79

Entire extent admeasuring Hectare 0.11.0 Ares or Acre 0.27 Cents of Maanavari Land in Survey No. 205/5A.

¶80

Item-3:

¶81

Entire extent admeasuring Hectare 0.11.0 Ares or Acre 0.27 Cents of Maanavari Land in Survey No. 205/5B.

¶82

¶83

Total extent being Acre 0.66 Cents in all in respect of all the Three items mentioned above. The above Land is situated in Opasamuthiram and Gummidipoondi Panchayat limits.

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

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

City Union Bank Limited v. S Pet Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. S Pet Industry

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

Sri Sai Aqua Industries versus Karur Vysya Bank

Sivanandhan G versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

R Suresh versus City Union Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M s Kavan Bag India Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Marudhu Enterprises

Ms Peri Educational and Charitable Trust versus Indian Overseas Bank