Allowed

State Bank of India v. Seema

DRT29 May 2023TA/16/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against the Defendants for recovery of outstanding home and top-up loan dues along with interest. The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte and directed the Defendants to pay the claimed amount within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 56,95,515/- and Rs. 5,89,56,185/- along with interest and charges within 60 days; non-interference with properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

TA No. 16 of 2023

¶2

Registered on : 03.12.2021 Decided on : 29.05.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I MUMBAI TRANSFER ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 16 of 2023

¶4

STATE BANK OF INDIA ) A body corporate constituted under the ) Provisions of State Bank of India Act ) Of 1955, having Central Office at ) Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400 021 ) And one of its branch office at ) Stress Assets Recovery Branch, ) 6th Floor, the International, 16, ) Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, ) Mumbai - 400 020, Through its ) Chief Manager Mr. Subhash C. Saraswat ) VERSUS

¶5

... APPLICANT

¶6

Mrs. Seema Yogesh Salla ) Age-50 years, individual Indian ) inhabitants Residing at Flat No.2202,) 22ndFloor, Tower –B, D Wing, ) Imperial Heights, BEST Nagar, ) Oshiwara, Goregaon (W), ) Mumbai – 400062. ) Also at; 142/D, Lal Bawas Haveli, )

¶7

Page 1 of 8

¶8

TA No. 16 of 2023

¶9

Room No.3, 1stFloor,	)
Bhuleshwar Kalbadevi,	)
Mumbai– 400002.	)
Also at;
Flat No. 101, Pusph Vinod,	)
K. D. Road, Near Rasraj Hotel,	)
Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400056	)
2. Mr. Yogesh Jagjivandas Salla	)
Age-53 years, individual Indian	)
inhabitants Residing at Flat No.22	02)
22ndFloor, Tower –B, D Wing,	)
Imperial Heights, BEST Nagar,	)
Oshiwara, Goregaon (W),	)
Mumbai – 400062.	)
Also at;	)
142/D, Lal Bawas Haveli,	)
Room No.3, 1stFloor,	)
Bhuleshwar Kalbadevi,	)
Mumbai– 400002.	)
Also at;
Flat No. 101, Pusph Vinod,	)
K. D. Road, Near Rasraj Hotel,	)
Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400056	) ...	DEFENDANT
__________________________________ Counsel for the Applicant : Adv	_____ . Ms.	_____________________ Salma Ghaswala
Counsel for the Defendant : Ex -	parte.

Page 2 of 8

TA No. 16 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

The Original Application has been filed by the Applicant against the Defendant No.1 & 2 before the Ld. DRT-III, Mumbai, for recovery of the following amount:-

¶14

(i) Rs.56,95,515/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen only) as on 16.11.2021 alongwith pendentelite and future interest from 17.11.2021 @7.3% (0.3% above MCLR) an as per present rate/contractual rate with 2% overdue interest with monthly rests till its realization of the entire outstanding in Housing Term Loan Account.

¶15

(ii) Rs.5,89,56,185/- (Rupees Five Crore Eighty Nine Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five Only) as on 16/11/2021 alongwith pendentelite and future interest from 17.11.2021 @8.25% (1.25% above MCLR) and as per present rate/contractual rate with 2% overdue interest with monthly rests till its realization of the entire outstanding in SBI Housing Top Up Loan Account.

¶16

After the change of jurisdiction, the OA was transferred to

¶17

this Tribunal from Ld. DRT-III, Mumbai and registered as T.A. No.16/2023.

¶18

The facts succinctly set out in the O.A./T.A are that at the request of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank vide its Arrangement Letter dated 22.06.2018 granted the Home Loan of Rs.50,00,000/(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) for purchasing Flat No.2202, 22nd Floor, Tower D, Imperial Heights, Oshiwara, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400062 together with Car Parking space No.164 in Podium-3 of the Tower D. The said Home Loan amount was

¶19

Page 3 of 8

¶20

TA No. 16 of 2023

¶21

repayable by Defendant No.1 and 2 in Monthly Instalments of Rs.40,588/-.

¶22

In consideration of sanction the said loan, the Defendants executed and delivered the following documents in favour of the Applicant Bank:-

¶23

a. Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan of Rs.50,00,000/- granted to Public, dated 22.06.2018.

¶24

b. Memorandum of Loan Agreement for home loan, Annexure-B, dated 22.06.2018.

¶25

c. Agreement to Mortgage, dated 22.06.2018.

¶26

d. Deed of Undertaking, dated 22.06.2018.

¶27

e. Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 24.07.2018.

¶28

f. Affidavit dated 22.06.2018.

¶29

g. Undertaking, dated 22.06.2018.

¶30

It is further stated that simultaneously the Defendants requested for Personal Loan under SBI Home Top-up Scheme. The Applicant Bank vide its Arrangement Letter dated 22.06.2018 granted the Personal Loan under SBI Home Top-up Scheme of Rs.4,60,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Sixty Lakhs Only) on extension of mortgage of the aforesaid property as a security. The said Loan amount was repayable by the defendants in Monthly Installments of Rs.4,42,328/-.

¶31

Page 4 of 8

¶32

TA No. 16 of 2023

¶33

In order to secure the aforesaid Personal Loan under SBI Home Top-up Scheme, the Defendants executed and delivered the following documents in favour of the Applicant Bank :-

¶34

a. Loan Agreement Home Top-Up Loan dated 22.06.2018.

¶35

b. Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan dated 22.06.2018.

¶36

c. Undertaking, dated 22.06.2018.

¶37

In order to further secure the repayment of aforesaid loans, the Defendants deposited the original title deeds in respect of their property being Flat No. 2202, 22^nd Floor, Tower D, Imperial Heights, Oshiwara, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400062 together with Car Parking space No.164 in Podium-3 of the Tower D with an intent to create mortgage as a primary security with Applicant Bank and deposited the following title deeds in respect of creation of mortgage are as follows:-

¶38

a. Agreement for sale dated 22.06.2011 between M/s. Vijay Associates (Wadhwa) Constructions Pvt. Ltd., referred as the “Promotor” of the One Part and Shri Yogesh J. Salla and Mrs. Seema Y. Salla hereinafter called “The Flat Allottee” as the purchaser of the other part registered under No. VDR205848-2011.

¶39

b. Confirmation Letter of Equitable Mortgage, dated 22.06.2018.

¶40

c. Confirmation Letter (enhancement of existing mortgage) dated 22.06.2018.

¶41

d. Extension of the Equitable Mortgage dated 24.07.2018.

¶42

e. NOC from the builder dated 02.08.2018.

¶43

Page 5 of 8

¶44

TA No. 16 of 2023

¶45

f. Receipt of Notice of Intimation by way of deposit of title deeds registered under No.BRL-6/1612/2018, dated 05.11.2018.

¶46

However, after availing the said loan, the Defendants failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and neglected to make the payment to the applicant bank. Therefore, the account was declared as NPA on 24.09.2020. Thereafter, the Applicant issued legal notice dated 08.11.2021 and called upon the Defendants to make the payment of the outstanding dues but the Defendants failed to pay the dues thus, the present OA has been filed by the Applicant.

¶47

Notices were issued to the Defendants. Despite service, none appeared for the Defendants nor any WS has been filed, thus, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.04.2023.

¶48

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents on along with their Claim Affidavit filed through their Chief Manager of State Bank of India Mr. Subhash C. Saraswat.

¶49

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and gone through the record.

¶50

The witness of the Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA/TA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant Bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the defendants. In my

¶51

Page 6 of 8

¶52

TA No. 16 of 2023

¶53

view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the applicant bank and the Applicant Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of Defendant No.1 and 2 is joint and several.

¶54

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application by the Applicant Bank deserves to be allowed against the Defendants.

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

a. The present O.A. hereby allowed and Defendants are hereby directed to pay to the Applicant Bank, within a period of 60 days, the following amount:-

¶57

(i) Rs.56,95,515/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest from 17.11.2021 @7.3% (0.3% above MCLR) an as per present rate/contractual rate with 2% overdue interest with monthly rests till its realization, in Housing Term Loan Account.

¶58

(ii) Rs.5,89,56,185/- (Rupees Five Crore Eighty Nine Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five Only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest from 17.11.2021 @8.25% (1.25% above MCLR) and as per present rate/contractual rate with 2% overdue interest with monthly rests till its realization, in SBI Housing Top Up Loan Account.

¶59

b. Failing which amount shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property as well as other personal moveable and immovable assets/properties of the Defendants.

¶60

Page 7 of 8

¶61

TA No. 16 of 2023

¶62

c. Defendants are hereby directed not to deal with his properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶63

d. Defendants shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA/TA.

¶64

e. Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶65

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

¶66

File be consigned to record.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 29.05.2023 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai

¶69

Tjs/-

¶70

Page 8 of 8

State Bank of India v. Seema

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Seema

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Rohit

Parveen Prakash Mahtani versus Punjab National Bank

Mr N Gopalkrishna Rao versus Federal Bank

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Mahasin Mia

Mr Shekhar Mennon versus State Bank of India

Dipesh Kabra Binodkumar versus South Indian Bank