Allowed

Rbl Bank Limited v. Mr Dr R Manivannan

DRT21 May 2026TA/773/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the applicant bank's interloping application directing the respondent-defendant to disclose movable and immovable assets, bank account details, and income tax returns within 15 days to facilitate debt recovery under Section 19 of the RDB Act.

What did the court decide?

The respondent/defendant is directed to disclose all assets on oath within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Rbl Bank Limited versus Mr Dr R Manivannan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IA 2583/25 in TA 773/23

¶2

21.05.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

I.A. No.2583 of 2025 in T.A. No. 773 of 2023

¶8

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited No.185, Second Floor, Mount Road Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006 Rep. by its Authorised Officer

¶9

….Petitioner/Applicant

¶10

-Vs- Dr. R. Manivannan No.4/14, Soundarapandian Street Ashok Nagar Chennai – 600 083

¶11

.…Respondent/ Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. M. Arunachalam

¶14

: - ORDER ON IA NO.2583 of 2025 - :

¶15

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.40,17,086.10p (Rupees Forty Lakhs Seventeen Thousand and Eighty Six and Ten Paise only) repayable together with further interest and costs.

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., I.A.No.2583/2025 with affidavit of the Authorsied Signatory of applicant bank, praying to order and direct the defendants to file their respective comprehensive affidavit disclosing on oath the ownership assets both movable and immovable held by them jointly and or severally including details of all company and self bank accounts (with account numbers,

¶17

IA 2583/25 in TA 773/23

¶18

¶19

21.05.2026

¶20

company, branch etc.) an all amounts lying in the Company Banks and self bank accounts, list of their debtors who owe them money within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the order or within such time as deemed fit by the Tribunal, pending disposal of the above OA.

¶21

It is the case of applicant bank that the present OA was originally filed by M/s RBL Bank Limited. Meanwhile, during the pendency of OA, the original applicant had transferred / assigned and sold the debts along with underlying securities vide Deed of Assignment dated 31.12.2019 to the present applicant. The Applicant has filed the petition for Substitution and Amendment in the Original Application and the present Applicant Bank, Kotak Bank Limited has been substituted in place of M/s. RBL Bank Ltd which is a matter of record and the same is numbered as I.A. No. 2ll of 2022 and allowed on 31.05.2022 by the DRT-II. Thereafter due to bifurcation of Jurisdiction, OA was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No. 773 of 2023.

¶22

It is further submitted that the erstwhile the original Applicant RBL Bank Ltd had already filed the Proof Afldavit along with the original documents during month of March 2019 and the same was eschewed by vide order dated 10.03.2025 and fresh proof affidavit is pending before this Tribunal for consideration.

¶23

The applicant bank submits that recently they came to know about the latest addresses of the defendant morefully detailed in the IA. In the event of OA being allowed and order passed in favour of the Applicant, the

¶24

IA 2583/25 in TA 773/23

¶25

¶26

21.05.2026

¶27

Applicant will not be able to realise the fruits of the entire order amount from the Defendant as the said Defendant has no intention to pay the outstanding dues though he is a Doctor by profession and has all means of living and is not a circumstantial defaulter. Hence, it is necessary for the Petitioner/Applicant to file the present petition seeking this Tribunal to directing the Defendant to disclose the details of the movable immovable assets owned by the Defendant, his bank account details with amounts lying therein, list of his Debtors who owe him money, his last 5 years income tax retums and the profit and loss /balance sheets of all his business incomes so that the same can be attached and the said Defendant should also be restrained from moving out of India as there are chances of his fleeing the country and the interest of the Applicant is required to be protected till its dues are not realized in full.

¶28

The applicant bank submits that the Defendant/ Respondent is a market defaulter having other NBFC loans also outstanding which is assigned to the Applicant and separate legal proceedings are going on for the recovery of the outstanding dues of other financial institutions also. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Applicant and no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent/Defendant if this petition is allowed on the other hand Petitioner/Applicant will be put to irreparable loss if this petition is not allowed.

¶29

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

¶30

IA 2583/25 in TA 773/23

¶31

21.05.2026

¶32

¶33

The Applicant Bank has filed the above I.A. on the premise that the respondents /defendants are owing several other immovable properties but the same has not been disclosed at the time of availing of the above said loan. Hence the applicant bank prayed to direct the respondents to disclose the assets owned by them in order to effectively recover its legitimate dues.

¶34

It is a matter of record that the OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.40,17,086.10p 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.

¶35

As per Section 19 (3)(A)(c) of RDB Act,

¶36

“If the estimated value of such other assets is not sufficient to recover the debt, seek an order directing the defendant to disclose to the Tribunal, particulars of other properties or assets owned by the defendants.”

¶37

As the Applicant Bank has prima facie established the essential ingredients for directing the respondent / defendant to disclose all his assets on oath, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order:

¶38

IA 2583/25 in TA 773/23

21.05.2026

:ORDER:

In the circumstances pleaded, respondent / defendant is

¶43

hereby directed to disclose all his assets on oath within a period of

¶44

15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶45

The Registry is directed to issue notice to the respondent along with copy of this order.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(S.V. GOWRAMMA)

¶48

PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶49

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

¶50

21^st day of May, 2026)

Rbl Bank Limited v. Mr Dr R Manivannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rbl Bank Limited v. Mr Dr R Manivannan

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sindhuja Modern Dall and Rice Mills versus 201

Bank of India versus M/S Agma Foundations Private Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Reflection Investment

Canara Bank versus C P Sudharson

Union Bank of India versus Ggs Traders

Canara Bank versus R G Enterprises Rep By Mr R Sathish And two Others