Allowed

State Bank of India v. Patrick Selvaraj

DRT28 Jul 2023MA/98/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an interlocutory application seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The Commissioner was tasked with verifying and comparing copy documents filed by the SBI applicant bank against original documents lodged with the CBI in connection with a loan recovery suit.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner Smt. O. Ashwini Prakash to inspect, compare and verify documents with a fee of Rs.10,000.

State Bank of India versus Patrick Selvaraj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

MA No.98/23 in OA Dy. No.1461/2022

¶3

28.07.2023

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K Presiding Officer

¶7

MA No.98/2023 in OA Dy. No.1461/2022

¶8

State Bank of India ARM Branch Chennai Rep. by its Assistant General Manager Retail Asset Central Processing Centre (RACPC-Chennai) No.4, Santhome High Road Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004

¶9

…Petitioner / Applicant

¶10

¶11

Mr. Patrick Selvaraj, S/o Mr. Selvaraj Plot No.3/1, No.3, G-1 Ground Floor Thejus Apartment, Kamatchi Amman Street Velachery – 600 042 Chennai

¶12

...Respondent / Defendant

¶13

Counsel for petitioner / applicant bank : M/s K. Chandrasekaran

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This interlocutory application is filed by petitioner / applicant bank praying

¶16

to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the original documents lying with CBI, Chennai.

¶17

OA is filed by applicant bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,19,43,242/viz., Rs.2,27,08,770/- in respect of Housing Term Loan – I together with future interest at the rate of 7.85% p.a., Rs.31,79,067/- in respect of Top Up Loan – I together with future interest at the rate of 8% p.a., Rs.2,69,528/- in respect of

¶18

¶19

MA No.98/23 in OA Dy. No.1461/2022

¶20

28.07.2023

¶21

Suraksha Account together with interest at the rate of 7.35% p.a., Rs.2,23,19,650/- in respect of Housing Term Loan-II together with future interest at the rate of 7.60% p.a., Rs.31,96,689/- in respect of Top-Up Loan-II together with future interest at the rate of 8% p.a., Rs.2,69,538/- in respect of Suraksha account together with future interest at the rate of 7.35% p.a., from the date of application till the date of realization in full.

¶22

At the stage of scrutiny of documents before numbering the OA, applicant bank had filed this application in MA No.98/23. Despite issuance of copy of MA to defendants by applicant bank, defendants did not choose to either enter appearance or file any counter.

¶23

Perused material documents available on record. It is the case of applicant bank that defendants have believed to have played mischief with applicant and as a consequence, a complaint was lodged against defendants. At request of Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai, applicant bank had submitted all original documents relating to the above loan account for a detailed investigation. Hence, applicant bank prayed for appointing an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of verification and comparison of documents contemplated to be filed and marked as Exhibits with originals lying in the hands of CBI, ACB located at No.26, Haddows Road, ShastriBhava, Third Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai or any other location, if any.

¶24

In the circumstances pleaded, MA No.98/23 is allowed and Smt.O.AshwiniPrakash Advocate is appointed as Advocate Commissioner for the

¶25

¶26

MA No.98/23 in OA Dy. No.1461/2022

¶27

28.07.2023

¶28

purpose of inspecting, comparing and verifying the copies of the documents filed along with OA, with the original documents lying in custody of CBI, Chennai. The remuneration of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose is fixed at Rs.10,000/to be paid by applicant bank directly and file proof thereof.

¶29

The Advocate Commissioner is directed to issue advance notice about the execution of commands of the warrant to the Ld. counsel appearing for applicant bank, as well as to the officials of CBI, ACB, Chennai, with whom the custody of documents is stated to be submitted by applicant bank and to the defendants by Registered post with acknowledgment due to their last known address and then proceed to verify each and every page of documents including the number of pages, signatures and dates and categorically describe the same document wise in his report.

¶30

Applicant bank is directed to furnish copies of all the pages of the documents to verify and confirm the same in two sets to the Advocate Commissioner for execution of the warrant.

¶31

The Advocate Commissioner is directed to file report by 04.10.2023. Accordingly, Registry is directed to issue warrant to the Advocate Commissioner.

¶32

Call on 04.10.2023 for filing report by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 28^th day of July, 2023)

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Patrick Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Patrick Selvaraj

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

Icici Bank Limited versus K Saravanan

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Mr S Saravanan

Indian Bank versus Mr N M Ranganathan And Other

State Bank of India versus Thiruselvi

State Bank of India versus Vinesh

State Bank of India versus Deepan R