Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. E. Rajesh, S/o. Mr. Eyalarasan

DRT30 Oct 2023TA/29/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Chennai allowed the bank's application for recovery of a housing loan. The tribunal ordered the recovery of the principal and future interest at a reduced rate of 8% via sale of mortgaged property and personal liability.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.53,90,972.75 with future interest at 8% per annum to be recovered via sale of mortgaged property and personal liability.

Indian Overseas Bank versus E. Rajesh, S/o. Mr… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of October, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.29 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.254 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.29 of 2023)

¶7

Indian Overseas Bank Pattukkottai Branch, No.156, Big Street, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur – 614 601 …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

E. Rajesh, S/o. Mr. Eyalarasan, 48, Anantha Valli Vaikal, Peravurai Taluk, Pattukkottai – 614 804 …Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mrs. Sheela Venkatesh Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This Original Application in short OA is filed seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.53,90,972.75/- with future interest from the date of application till realization.

¶13

It is the case of the applicant that the respondent availed a term loan under Subha Graha housing Scheme for Rs.40,00,000/- for the purchase of a residential flat. The facility was availed by execution of necessary loan documents, demand promissory notice and loan agreement apart from creation of equitable mortgage.

¶14

3 It is the further case of the applicant that the defendants failed to repay the credit facilities resulting the account being classified as NPA on 31.3.2017,

¶15

¶16

which was followed by a demand notice recalling the facility and demand the amount due. Even as the defendant failed in making the repayment, the OA Is filed seeking recovery of the amount due in the account.

¶17

Since the summons issued to the defendant could not be served, summons through substitute service by paper publication was effected. As there was no representation, the defendant is set exparte after being called absent.

¶18

The applicant tendered their evidences through AW1 and got marked as Ext.A1 to A11.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and considered the pleadings in the light of available evidence. The following issues arises for consideration in this matter.

¶20

i) Whether the applicant had succeed din proving the OA claim. ii) What order are to be passed.

¶21

Since both these issues are inter related the same were gone into and decided together.

¶22

The only evidence available in this matter is the uncontroverted evidence of AW1 and documentary evidence produced as ExtA1 to A11. Ext.A1 loan application and Ext.A2 sanction evidences that the defect approached the applicant for the credit facility, which was sanctioned by the respondent. The demand promissory notice, letter seeking permission to repay in EMI and the loan agreement marked as Ext.A3, A4 and A5 respectively proves that the defendant was obliged to pay back the amount. Ext.A6 Memorandum of deposit of title deeds evidences that the defendant with an intention to create

¶23

¶24

mortgage had deposited the title deeds. Ext.A7 is also in conformity with the case of the applicant. Ext.A8 and A9 demand notices evidences that the applicant had demanded repayment of the loan.

¶25

The statement of accounts duly certified is produced and marked as Ext.A9, Ext.A9 evidences that the amount as claimed in the OA is due and the same further proves that there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶26

The document produced and marked by the applicant was found admissible and the same are sufficient to prove the claim of the applicant and the liability of the defendant.

¶27

However as the applicant had charged interest at contractual rate and also taking note of the fact that the facility is availed for buying a residential flat, this Tribunal is of the view that the OA can be allowed with reduced interest rate.

¶28

In the result

¶29

i) TA. 29 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) The applicant is permitted to recover Rs.53,90,72.75/- with pendalite and future interest @ 8% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till realization and as allowed to recover by proceedings against and selling the mortgage property.

¶31

iii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant bank, the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due as ordered above.

¶32

¶33

iv) A recovery certificate to be drawn in terms of above and issued to the Recovery officer to recover the amount.

¶34

v) Applicant is also allowed cost of the proceedings for which a cost memo is to be filed in 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶36

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 30^th day of October, 2023)

¶37

(T. RAJESH ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶38

Indian Overseas Bank v. E. Rajesh, S/o. Mr. Eyalarasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. E. Rajesh, S/o. Mr. Eyalarasan

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

Similar cases

Rajakumari versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus I. Paramasivam

Canara Bank versus Ms Caxton Graphics

Karnataka Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Govindappa

Union Bank of India versus Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar

P Mathialagan versus Bank of India