Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Zas Leathers

DRT23 Jun 2026TA/167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for a recovery certificate. The Tribunal found the claim established against the partnership firm and guarantors. It approved recovery of the principal amount along with reduced rates of simple interest until realization.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate drawn for aggregate sum of Rs.4,36,21,849.24p along with interest at varying simple rates. Respondents 2 and 3 held personally liable for surplus deficiency.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Zas Leathers — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 23^rd day of June, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.167 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.40 of 2022 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.167 of 2022)

¶6

Bank of Baroda Rep. by its Asst. General Manager Egmore Branch Dugar Towers, No.123, R.L Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Zas Leathers

¶9

Rep. by its Partners No. 12-A, Perianna Maistry Street, 1^st Floor, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.

¶10

Also at

¶11

1^st Floor, No.13/2, Kattur, Sadayappan Street, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003

¶12

Mr. Zakir Ahmed Khan S/o Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan Door No.9/5A, Natharsha Street, Begampur, Dindigul -624 002.

¶13

Also at 318, V K High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034.

¶14

Mrs. Sadiqua Banu W/o. Mr. Zakir Ahmed Khan Door No.9/5A, Natharsha Street, Begampur, Dindigul -624002.

¶15

¶16

Also At 318, V K High Road Nungambakkam Chennai- 600034. ...Defendants

¶17

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶18

Counsel for Applicant Bank : Mr. S. Pandurangan Counsel for Defendants: M/s G. Chandrasekaran Defendants ex-parte on 07.03.2024

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.4,36,21,849.24p comprising a sum of Rs.3,29,67,971/- together with interest at the rate of 11.00% per annum being the amount due under the overdraft Limit Account; a sum of Rs.29,93,784.95p together with interest at the rate of 7.00% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under WCTL ( BGECLS) account; a sum of Rs.63,81,905.29p together with interest at the rate of 10.9% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under WCTL (BGECLS) account and a sum of Rs.12,78,188/- together with interest at the rate of 11.00% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under FITL Account from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶21

¶22

Facts of the case as averred in the Application

¶23

At the request of the defendants, the applicant has sanctioned to the 1^st Defendant Firm vide its sanction letter dated 19.07.2018 the credit facility Overdraft Limit of Rs.300 Lakhs subject to the terms and conditions contained in the sanction letter. The applicant submits the 1^st defendant has availed credit facilities from the erstwhile Vijaya Bank, Egmore Branch, Chennai, 600 008 and the Defendants have executed Security Documents and created Securities in favour of the erstwhile Vijaya Bank, Egmore Branch, which is now merged with the Bank of Baroda, the applicant herein pursuant to the Notification No.02 Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (i) and Order No. G.S.R.2 (E) dated 02.01.2019 of the Government of India.

¶24

It is stated that pursuant to the Notification No.02 Part II, Section 3, SubSection (i) and Order No. G.S.R.2 (E) dated 02.01.2019 of the Government of India, the Vijaya Bank, has been amalgamated with the Bank of Baroda (BOB), under Section 9 of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) of India Act, 1970 and Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1980 with effect from 01.04.2019. The applicant submits that in terms of the said notification, on and from the effective date, (i.e., 01.04.2019) the undertaking of the transferor Bank (i.e; Vijaya Bank), as it stood before the effective date,

¶25

¶26

shall without any further act, instrument or deed, stand transferred to, and vest in, the Transferee Bank (i.e. Bank of Baroda ).

¶27

The 1^st defendant is a partnership firm originally represented by the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants and one Mrs. M. Kanagavalli as its Partners, are carrying on business of manufacture and trading of Finished Leather and Leather Products under the name and style “M/s. ZAS LEATHERS” and having its Office at 1^st Floor, No.13/2, Kattur, Sadayappan Street, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003. The Applicant also submits that the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants and one Mrs. Kanagavalli are the guarantors to the loan sanctioned to the 1^st Defendant on 19.07.2018. The said Mrs. Kanagavalli has retired from the Partnership Firm. Now the 1^st defendant is now represented by the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as its Partners. The present loans are also collaterally secured by the equitable mortgage over the immovable properties belonging to the 2^nd Defendant, more fully described in schedules “B” and “C” hereunder as a security for the due repayment of the credit limits availed by the 1^st Defendant and hypothecation of the Stocks of leather goods and Book Debts.

¶28

The 1^st defendant represented by the 2^nd , 3^rd Defendants and the above said Mrs. Kanagavalli as its partners submitted loan application dated Nil to the applicant bank. Considering the request of the Defendants, the applicant vide its letter dated 19.07.2018 has sanctioned the Working

¶29

¶30

Capital limit of Rs.300 Lakhs subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the above sanction letter which was duly acknowledged by the defendants. The above Overdraft credit facility shall carry interest @ MCLR Plus 3.55% at floating rate with monthly rests with a minimum of interest @ 12.15% p.a. It is also stipulated that the defendants are liable to pay additional interest @ 2% in case of failure to conduct/operate the account in terms of sanction.

¶31

6 . The 1^st defendant availed the above limits after the Defendants executed the following Security Documents in order to evidence and secure the due payment of the above limits executed various loan and security documents on 20.07.2018.

¶32

The 1^st defendant firm was reconstituted on the retirement of Mrs. M. Kanagavalli and now the 1^st defendant is reconstituted with the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as its partners. The operations in the above account were not satisfactory and the defendants unable to operate the account in terms of sanction. The 1^st defendant represented by the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as its partners requested the applicant bank for restructure of the loan. The applicant considering the request of the 1^st defendant has restructured the above loan account under MSME Accounts Restructure Scheme of the Bank and sanctioned restructure of the loan to the 1^st defendant on 31.12.2019 as under subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein

¶33

¶34

i.e., Cash Credit Limit of Rs.3,00,00,000.-, FITL Limit of Rs.13,61,000/and WCTL Limit of Rs.4,00,000.-.

¶35

Thee applicant has also sanctioned COVID-19 relief loan of Rs.30 Lakhs under Baroda General Emergency Credit Line Scheme vide sanction letter dated 14.05.2020 in response to the request made by the defendants vide its letter dated 14.05.2020. It is submitted that the Applicant as a relief measure as per the Guidelines of Govt of India/RBI/Bank’s guidelines, has sanctioned the following limits to the 1^st defendant. It is also submitted that the defendants submitted a loan application dated 14.05.2020 seeking another Working Capital Term Loan Limit of Rs. 60 Lakhs. The applicant has also sanctioned COVID-19 relief loan of Rs.60 Lakhs under Baroda General Emergency Credit Line Scheme vide sanction letter dated 20.10.2020. It is also submitted that the 1^st defendant closed the FITL loan limit of Rs.2,66,311/- on 27.10.2020.

¶36

The 1^st defendant availed the above restructured limits after the Defendants executed the Security Documents on 31.12.2019, 15.05.2020 and 20.10.2020 in order to evidence and secure the due repayment of the above limits.

¶37

The credit facilities are also secured by the hypothecation of the Stocks of Finished Leathers and Book Debts and other movables more fully mentioned in the schedule “A” hereunder.

¶38

¶39

The 2^nd defendant has created a mortgage by way of deposit of Title Deeds including the Sale Deed dated 25.05.2018 bearing Doc. No. 7868/2018 along with the certificate dated 08.12.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore certifying that the Schedule “B” Property is a Non Agricultural Land, over the Schedule “B” mentioned property as a security with the applicant bank at Egmore, Chennai with intention to create a mortgage thereon. The 2^nd defendant has executed a Registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 28.08.2018 bearing Doc. No.12620/2018 duly confirming the deposit of title deeds relating to Schedule “B“property as a security in favour of the Applicant. The 2^nd defendant has also executed a Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 23.12.2020 bearing Doc. No.18012/2020 duly confirming the deposit of title deeds relating to Schedule “B“ property as a security in favour of the Applicant bank. The 2^nd defendant has created a mortgage by way of deposit of Title Deeds including the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2019 bearing Doc. No. 3071/2019 over the Schedule “C” mentioned property as a security with the applicant bank at Egmore, Chennai with intention to create a mortgage thereon. The 2^nd defendant has executed a Registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 22.12.2020 bearing Doc. No.10581/2020 duly confirming the deposit of title deeds relating to Schedule “C“ property as a security in favour of the Applicant.

¶40

¶41

The defendants executed the Acknowledgment of liability dated 20.10.2020 in respect of Cash Credit (OD Loan) duly acknowledging the debt. The defendants also executed Acknowledgment of liability dated 20.10.2020 in respect of Term Loan.

¶42

It is submitted that the operation of the above account was not regular despite restructuring the loan account and several reminders including the Reminders dated 06.02.2021 and 03.03.2021. The 1^st defendant failed to operate the above accounts as per the terms of sanction. The defendants made false promises for regularising the account but failed to repay the dues. Several meetings held with the defendants did not yield any result. As the account was irregular despite restructure, the applicant has declared the account as NPA as on 31.03.2021 in terms of the guidelines of RBI. As the defendants did not make any repayments, the loan account has been classified as NPA as on 31.03.2021 in terms of the guidelines of RBI and the applicant by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, had issued a Demand Notice dated 13.05.2021 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act to the defendants through it’s Authorised Officer. The same has been received by the defendants and have failed to pay the outstanding dues within 60 days of the receipt of the above notice. The defendants did not submit any reply/objections to the above demand notice. Further the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank has issued a

¶43

¶44

Possession Notice dated 25.08.2021 under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act. The applicant is filing this O.A. without prejudice to its rights under the SARFAESI Act.

¶45

Reply Statement by 2^nd Defendant

¶46

The 2^nd defendant filed reply statement denying the averments in the OA and submitted that it is false to state that 3^rd defendant is one of the partners of the 1^st defendant. It is stated that in the year 2020 itself she was relieved from the 1^st defendant partnership concern and the same was intimated to the applicant bank by submitting GST return and inpsite of many reminders the applicant bank failed to replace her with one Mr. Fareeth Shaik Imam and on 15.06.2021 written letter was given to the applicant bank which was acknowledged by bank. Inspite of the same the applicant bank added her as defendant in the application as one of the partner, which is absolutely wrong.

¶47

It is false to state that the applicant bank has sanction COVID-19 relief loan of Rs.30 lakhs and 60 lakhs vide letter dated 14.05.2020. In order to fulfill their norms of distributing COVID-19 relief loan, the applicant bank themselves sanctioned and the said amount was deducted for the overdraft loan account. The defendant did not even see the single pie out of that relief fund as stated by the applicant bank.

¶48

¶49

It is false to state that the operation of the loan account was not regular despite restructuring. In fact the aqbove said overdraft loan was obtained in the year 2018 and these defendants were repaying installments regularly till the pandemic situation and as a result these defendants could not repay the same regularly. The defendants are engaged in leather business and due to lock down for more than seven months all finished leather goods got spoiled.

¶50

The defendants come under Small Scale Sector and during pandemic situation the entire business was lost, despite the same the applicant classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2021. The applicant bank has deducted the COVID-19 Relief Loan from the overdraft account which is not proper. The applicant has to prove the amount claimed in the OA. Thus contending the defendant prayed for dismissing the OA.

¶51

Reply Statement by 3^rd defendant

¶52

The 1^st defendant, a Partnership firm, initially at the time of stating the business and obtaining the loan from the applicant bank, this defendant was also one of the partners of the 1^st defendant. Subsequently one of the partner viz., Mrs. M. Kanagavalli got relieved from partnership and subsequently in the year 2020 due to personal inconvenience this defendant also got relieved, despite the same the bank has filed the OA

¶53

¶54

against this defendant also as if this defendant is one of the Partners of the 1^st defendant firm, which is not maintainable under law.

¶55

This defendant on 15.06.2021, a written letter was submitted to the applicant bank intimating about the relieving of this defendant from the partnership firm and one Mr. Fareeth Shaik Inam has joint the firm. Inspite of the same the above OA si filed on 16.09.2021 showing this defendant as one of the Partners is not maintainable.

¶56

For the foregoing, the above OA is liable to be dismissed as against this defendant as she is no more the partner of the 1^st defendant.

¶57

Proof affidavit filed by the Applicant Bank

¶58

The applicant bank filed its proof affidavit along with 55 documents, which

¶59

are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-55, the details of which are as under: -

¶60

Sl. No.	Date of Document	Description of the Documents	Ex. No.
1	19.07.2018	Loan Application	A1
2	19.07.2018	Sanction Letter	A2
3	20.07.2018	Loan Agreement cum Hypothecation Deed	A3
4	20.07.2018	Letter of Access by D1	A4
5	20.07.2018	Letter of Access by D1, D2, D3 Mrs. Kanagavalli	A5
6	20.07.2018	Letter of Guarantee by D2, D3 and Mrs.Kanagavalli	A6
7	31.12.2019	Letter of Sanction of Restructure of Loan	A7

¶61

¶62

8	14.05.2020	Sanction of BCECLS Loan along with Loan application dated 14.05.2020 (Request Letter)	A8
9	14.05.2020	Loan Application submitted by the 1^st defendant	A9
10	20.10.2020	Sanction of BGECLS-Covid Loan for Rs. 60,00,000/-	A10
11	31.12.2019	Letter of Partnership	A11
12	31.12.2019	D.P. Note for Rs. 3,00 ,00,000/-	A12
13	31.12.2019	Letter of Instalment	A13
14	31.12.2019	General Undertaking	A14
15	31.12.2019	Draft Undertaking	A15
16	31.12.2019	General form of Continuing Guarantee by D2 & D3	A16
17	31.12.2019	Consent Letter for disclosure	A17
18	31.12.2019	Letter of Partnership	A18
19	31.12.2019	D.P. Note for Rs. 10 ,95,184/-	A19
20	31.12.2019	Letter of Instalment	A20
21	31.12.2019	General Undertaking	A21
22	31.12.2019	Letter of Draft Undertaking	A22
23	31.12.2019	General Form of Continuing Guarantee by D2 & D3 SupplementaryAgreement	A23
24	31.12.2019	Consent Letter for disclosure	A24
25	31.12.2019	Letter of Partnership	A25
26	15.05.2020	Letter of Partnership	A26
27	15.05.2020	D.P. Note for Rs.30,00,000/-	A27
28	15.05.2020	Letter of instalment	A28
29	15.05.2020	Letter of continuing security	A29
30	15.05.2020	Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement-	A30
31	15.05.2020	Composite Hypothecation Agreement-	A31

¶63

¶64

32	15.05.2020	Letter of Undertaking with negative lien	A32
33	15.05.2020	General Undertaking	A33
34	15.05.2020	General Form of Continuing Guarantee by D2 & D3	A34
35	20.10.2020	Letter of Partnership	A35
36	20.10.2020	D.P. Note for Rs.60,00,000/-	A36
37	20.10.2020	Letter of instalment	A37
38	20.10.2020	Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement	A38
39	20.10.2020	Letter of Undertaking with negative lien	A39
40	20.10.2020	Declaration cum undertaking cum Authority	A40
41	20.10.2020	Undertaking Letter from borrowers	A41
42	25.05.2018	Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.7868/2018	A42
43	08.12.2017	Certificate issued by Tashildar certifying it is a non agricultural land	A43
44	28.08.2018	Reg. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearingDoc.No.12620/2018	A44
45	23.12.2020	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearingDoc.No.18012/2020	A45
46	25.03.2019	Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.3071/2019	A46
47	22.12.2020	Reg. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearingDoc.No.10581/2020	A47
48	20.10.2020	Letter of Acknowledgment of Debt for Cash Credit	A48
49	20.10.2020	Letter of Acknowledgment of Debt for Term Loan	A49
50	27.10.2020	Letter from the 1^stDefendant advising the utilization of Covid Relief Loan of Rs.60,00,000/-	A50
51	06.02.2021	Reminder	A51
52	03.03.2021	Reminder	A52
53	13.05.2021	Demand Notice	A53

¶65

¶66

54	25.08.2021	Possession Notice	A54
55	------	Statement of Accounts	A55

¶67

Though the defendants were represented initially by their Ld. Counsel and

¶68

the reply statement was also filed on behalf of the defendants as there was no representation for the defendants continuously and on 07.03.2024, they were called absent and set ex-parte on that day. Thus the defendants did not choose to file their Counter Proof Affidavit.

¶69

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. The defendants were set ex-parte on 07.03.2024. Perused the records.

¶70

Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the applicant and after perusing the

¶71

records, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: -

¶72

1. Whether the applicant bank has established its claim against the defendants? If so, for what amount?

¶73

2. Whether the applicant bank is entitled for pendent lite and future interest, if so, at what rate ?

¶74

Point No.1

¶75

Whether the applicant bank has established its claim against the defendants? If so, for what amount?

¶76

The applicant bank in its endeavor to establish its claim against the

¶77

defendant examined its official as AW1 and got marked exhibits Ex.A-1 to A-55. Ld. Counsel for Applicant placing reliance on the proof affidavit of

¶78

¶79

AW-1, besides Exhibits A-1 to A-55 strenuously contended that the claim of the applicant stands established, as such, the applicant is entitled for a recovery certificate.

¶80

Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank would contend that defendants remained absent and did not choose to contest the case and hence the claim against these defendants remained unrebutted and thus proved. Further the contention of the 3^rd defendant that she was relieved from the partnership firm by the time OA is filed is not supported by documentary evidence. Ld. Counsel would also contend that the statement of accounts filed is proper and supported by appropriate certificate under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act and Information Technology Act and hence the claim of the applicant stands proved. It is further contended that the defendants though filed the reply statement, did not choose to file any CPA despite sufficient opportunity and therefore the claim of the applicant stand unrebutted.

¶81

As rightly contended by the Ld. Counsel for Applicant, barring filing of reply statement, the 3^rd defendant did not choose to file Counter Proof Affidavit substantiating the pleas taken in reply statement. Here it is to be stated that as per the scheme of adjudication of a claim/counter under the RDB Act, parties shall file their respective affidavits/counter affidavits in support of their claim or counter claim as the case may be and the Tribunal shall on the basis of the affidavits filed, adjudicate and decide the claim/counter

¶82

¶83

claim. Therefore, in the absence of any Counter Proof Affidavit, as rightly contended by the Ld. Counsel for Applicant, the defense put forth by the defendants remain unsubstantiated hence cannot be considered, thus the claim of the applicant stands unrebutted.

¶84

Therefore, in the light of the discussion as aforesaid, it is clear that the proof affidavit and the documents filed along with by the applicant remain unchallenged by the defendant. Further, the Tribunal on careful perusal of the unrebutted Proof Affidavit of AW-1 besides Exhibits A-1 to A-55 is fully satisfied that the applicant has established its claim. This point is answered accordingly.

¶85

Point No.2

¶86

Whether the applicant bank is entitled for pendent lite and future interest, if so, at what rate?

¶87

In terms of Sec. 19 (20) of the RDB Act, the Tribunal has been empowered to pass an order regarding payment of interest from the date on or before which payment of the amount is found due, up to the date of realisation or only payment, as it think fit to meet the ends of justice. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgement (reported in II 2009 BC pg. 696) in the matter of State Bank of India – vs – Sarath Textiles, held that “ Sec. 19 (20) of the RDDB & FI Act confers discretion on the Tribunal to award interest on

¶88

the applicant being as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice. ”. Further,

¶89

¶90

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Bank of India – vs – N. Raveendra (reported in 2002 [1] SCC pg. 367) held that “ Sec. 34 of CPC confers discretion on the Court to award or not to award interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit de-horse notwithstanding the contract between the parties. ” Sec. 19 (20) of the RDDB & FI Act is akin to Sec. 34 CPC.

¶91

While it is the case of the applicant that the applicant bank is entitled for contractual rate of interest till discharge of the entire outstanding dues, however, it is to be noted that in so far as pendente lite and future interest is concerned, the contractual rate of interest may not be applied. It is to be stated that the claim of the applicant bank includes the rate of interest and other charges payable as per the contract. The Tribunal already held that the applicant bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the OA and as such the Tribunal has awarded contractual rate of interest as claimed by the applicant bank till the date of filing the OA and in view of the fact that the subject loan being a business loan and the lending rate had considerably come down, the Tribunal is of the view that the defendants are entitled for a reduced rate of interest (simple) on the OA claim amount from the date of filing till the date of realization. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

¶92

¶93

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the OA is disposed off in the following manner from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule mentioned properties and other assets of the defendants: -

¶94

(a) TA No.167 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶95

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.4,36,21,849.24p in the following manner: -

¶96

(i) A sum of Rs.3,29,67,971/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum (simple) being the amount due under the overdraft Limit Account;

¶97

(ii) A sum of Rs.29,93,784.95p together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum (simple) being the amount due under WCTL ( BGECLS) account;

¶98

(iii) A sum of Rs.63,81,905.29p together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum (simple) being the amount due under WCTL (BGECLS) account and

¶99

(iv) A sum of Rs.12,78,188/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum (simple) being the amount due under FITL Account

¶100

¶101

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant, the defendants 2 and 3 are personally liable for all such amounts due.

¶102

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.

¶103

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶104

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶105

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶106

Sd/-

¶107

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

¶108

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 23^rd day of June, 2026)

¶109

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

¶110

SCHEDULE “A” HYPOTHECATED PROPERTY

¶111

Hypothecation of Stocks of Finished Leathers and Book Debts and other

¶112

movables kept at No. 12-A, Perianna Maistry Street, 1^st Floor, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003.

¶113

¶114

SCHEDULE “B” MORTGAGED PROPERTY BELONGING TO D2

¶115

All that piece and parcel of Vacant land at Kurudampalayam Village, comprised in S.F.No.9/1 an extent of 2.72 acres, as per sub division in Patta No.757, in S.F.No.9/1A, an extent of 0.23.5 Hectares and in patta No.631, in S.F.No.9/1B an extent of 0.13.5 hectares in this, an extent of 0.91.43 acre with half share in the cart track on the Western side of S.F.No.10/1 and right to use the said cart track and all other appurtenances thereto within the following boundaries

¶116

North of – “B” Schedule property in Partition deed dated 21.12.1959 allotted to Rajagopal Naidu and others

¶117

South of – Property of Palani Gounder

¶118

East of – Land in S.F. No.10/2;

¶119

West of – S. F. No. 9/2 and with right of way through Cart Track on the Western side of S. F. No.10/1 and all other appurtenances thereto;

¶120

morefully described in the Sale Deed dated 25.05.2018 bearing Doc. No.7868 of 2018 at SRO, Periyanaickenpalayam and Registration District of Coimbatore, Property belonging to Mr.Zakir Ahmed Khan, D2.

¶121

¶122

SCHEDULE “C” MORTGAGED PROPERTY BELONGING TO D2

¶123

All that piece and parcel of Land in the Sanctioned Plan of the Vellakinar Housing scheme Phase-I area bearing Plot No. A-123 in S. No. 81/1 part, 81/2A part and 85/2 Part of Vellakinar Coimbatore and Bounded:

¶124

On the North By: Plot No.C-139, C-140 and C-141

¶125

On The East By: Plot No.A-124

¶126

On the South By: 12.00 Mtr. Road (40 Ft. Road)

¶127

On the West By: Plot No.A-122

¶128

Measuring

¶129

On the North By 12.00 meter On the East by 18.00 meter On the South By 12.00 Meter On the West by 18.00 meter

¶130

And all measuring Nil ground and 2325 Sq. Ft. (216.00 Sq. Meter) with the

¶131

building standing and erected thereon and situated within the Sub Registration District of Gandhipuram and Registration District of Coimbatore. Thudiyalur Neighbourhood Scheme Phase-I- Plot No.123, Block No.12, Ref. No. A12/8929/06 and morefully described in the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2019 bearing

¶132

Doc. No.3071 of 2019 at SRO, Gandhipuram, property belonging to Mr. Zakir Ahmed Khan, D1.

¶133

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

¶134

Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Zas Leathers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Zas Leathers

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

Raffic versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Anbarasu Munusamy versus Hdfc Bank

Kasuals Clothing versus Union Bank of India

Rml Jewellery versus Bank of Baroda

Ahamed Thambi Maideen versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/s. Sri Bharath Logistics