Disposed

M Lakshmi Priya v. Bank of Baroda

DRT8 Jan 2026SA/361/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses an objection to territorial jurisdiction filed by a respondent bank in a Securitisation Application. The Tribunal rejected the bank's claim of lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the SA is maintainable within its limits as the secured asset is situated within the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction, despite the bank's assertion that the jurisdiction lay elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Memo on lack of territorial jurisdiction rejected; Securitisation Application to proceed for adjudication on merits.

M Lakshmi Priya versus Bank of Baroda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 8^th day of January, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY Presiding Officer

¶4

SA No.361 of 2024

¶5

M. Lakshmi Priya W/o Mohan No.9/3, Rajaji Street, Gandhi Nagar Saligrammam, Chennai – 600 093 …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Authorized Officer Bank of Baroda Stressed Assets Recovery Branch No.10, 1^st Floor, C.P. Ramasamy Road Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018

¶8

Mr. Narasimhan Sivakumar S/o Mr. S. Sivakumar Residing at No.20, B3, Kamarajar 1^st Cross Street Gandhi Nagar, Saligramam Chennai – 600 093 …Respondents

¶9

Counsel on Record / Appeared

¶10

Applicant by : Ld. Counsel M/s Shraddha & Saburi Defendant by : Ld. Counsel M/s E. Vijayaraghavan

¶11

ORDER ON MEMO FILED BY THE RESPONDENT REGARDING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

¶12

This SA has been filed by the applicant challenging the auction

¶13

notice dated 1.6.2024 and the e-auction held on 25.06.2024 in respect of

¶14

the property belonging to the applicant (Property No.2 in the SA).

¶15

¶16

Averments in the Memo filed by the Respondent

¶17

During the course of hearing the respondent filed a memo in Dy No.6824 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025 stating therein that this Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present SA for the following reasons: -

¶18

(a) The loan account / transaction in question was maintained at the branch situated at Vadapalani and at present at ROSARB, Alwarpet, Chennai within the jurisdiction of DRT-III Chennai.

¶19

(b) The secured assets are situated at Saligramam village, presently Mambalam Taluk, within the jurisdiction of DRT-III Chennai.

¶20

¶21

(d) Respondent Bank is also at Alwarpet, Mylapore Taluk, within the jurisdiction of DRT-III, Chennai.

¶22

(e) No part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶23

It is stated in the memo that as per Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, territorial jurisdiction is determined by:

¶24

¶25

(a) Location of the branch where the account is maintained, or

¶26

(b) Place where cause of action has arisen, or

¶27

¶28

It is submitted that the filing of the appeal by the applicant before this Tribunal is wholly misconceived, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is prayed that the SA be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with exemplary costs.

¶29

Averments in Reply / Objections filed on behalf of the applicant to the memo filed by the Respondent Bank

¶30

It is stated that the memo filed by the respondent bank on “lack if Territorial Jurisdiction” is absurdly concocted with a malafide intention to mislead this Tribunal and evade legal repercussions of this Tribunal as against the defendant.

¶31

It is also stated that respondent’s own typed set of documents at Page No.100 to 113 in Serial No.7 of the typed set of documents filed by the respondent viz., Registered Memorandum of deposit of title deeds by Mrs. Lakshmi Priya, w/o Mr. B.K. Mohan in favour of Vijaya Bank registered as Doc. No.5549 of 2018, SRO, Virugambakkam; the registered sale deed at Page Nos.114 to 135, the demand notice at Page No.248 to 247; the Section 13(4) notice at Page Nos.263 to 276,

¶32

¶33

the Sale Notice dated 13.4.2023 at Page Nos.277 to 284; the sale notice dated 1.6.2024 at Page Nos.315 to 325 clearly reveals that the schedule mentioned property is situated within “Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk” which is well within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and this Tribunal has every jurisdiction to entertain the SA and decide the same on merits. It is stated that the present memo filed by the respondent is only to mislead the tribunal and hence the memo is liable to be rejected / dismissed in limine with exemplary costs to the respondent bank.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and the Ld. Counsel for

¶35

the Respondent Bank on the question of territorial jurisdiction.

¶36

Point for consideration

¶37

The only question that arises for consideration at this stage is whether this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present SA.

¶38

Answer to Point for consideration

¶39

The respondent bank has contended that this Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction on the grounds that the loan account was maintained at Vadapalani / ROSARB Alwarpet, the secured asset is situated at Saligramam (Mambalam Taluk), the applicant resides within

¶40

¶41

the jurisdiction of DRT-III, Chennai, and that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶42

Per contra, the applicant has specifically pointed out that the respondent bank’s own documents, filed as part of the typed set, categorically disclose that the secured asset is situated within Egmore– Nungambakkam Taluk, which falls squarely within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶43

On a careful perusal of the documents relied upon by the respondent bank it is evident that the schedule mentioned property is described as being situated within Egmore–Nungambakkam Taluk.

¶44

Under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, territorial jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal can be invoked, inter alia, at the place where the secured asset is situated or where part of the cause of action arises. The location of the secured asset itself constitutes a substantial and independent cause of action for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction.

¶45

When the respondent bank’s own statutory notices and title documents disclose that the secured asset falls within the territorial limits of this Tribunal, the respondent cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by taking a contradictory stand in the present memo.

¶46

¶47

The contention of the respondent that no part of the cause of

¶48

action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is therefore factually incorrect and legally untenable.

¶49

This Tribunal is of the considered view that the present Securitisation Application is maintainable before this Tribunal, and the objection raised by the respondent bank regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction is devoid of merits. Hence the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The memo filed by the respondent bank in Dy. No.6824 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025 raising objection as to territorial jurisdiction is rejected.

¶52

The Securitisation Application shall proceed for adjudication on merits.

¶53

List the SA for further proceedings on 24.02.2026 for further proceedings .

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶56

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 8^th day of January, 2026)

¶57

M Lakshmi Priya v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Lakshmi Priya v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venus Exports versus Bank of Baroda

Poovai Amman Avency and Others versus City Union Bank Limited

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) versus Mr. N. Srinivasan

State Bank of India versus Krishnan Ponnambalam

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. Vidot Sheila Agnes

D Murugesan versus Indian Overseas Bank