Allowed

Indian Bank v. Ms. S. Vijayalakshmi

DRT28 Dec 2023TA/490/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a home loan default. With minor modifications to interest rates, the bank was directed to recover the outstanding principal and interest from the defendants jointly and severally.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to realize aggregate amount of Rs.2,80,70,077.71p with 9% p.a. simple interest; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Indian Bank versus Ms. S. Vijayalakshmi — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 28^th day of December, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.490 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.93 of 2021 and thereafter transferred

¶7

to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.490 of 2023)

¶8

Indian Bank

¶9

Stressed Assets Management Branch Rep. by its Deputy General Manager No.55, 2^nd Floor, Wellington Estate Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai …Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Ms. S. Vijayalakshmi D/o S. Subburaj Residing at No.2/650. “Vishved” 3^rd Main Road, River View Enclave Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 125

¶12

Mr. R. Devanand S/o R. Ramasamy

¶13

Residing at No. 2/650. “Vishved” 3^rd Main Road, River View Enclave

¶14

Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 125 …Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s N. Somasundaar Defendants : Ex- parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,80,70,077.71p together with interest at the rate of 9.35% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in

¶18

full along with costs of this application and schedule mentioned property.

¶19

¶20

The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶21

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows: -

¶22

The defendants approached the applicant for grant of home loan for purchasing the land more fully described in schedule to the OA in December, 2017 and considering the said request the applicant vide sanction dated 27.12.2017 sanctioned Home Loan of Rs.3,11,00,000/- subject to terms and conditions. Having availed the said loan the defendants executed loan documents on 30.12.2017. The 1^st defendant deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned property with the applicant bank on 3.1.2018 with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 03.01.2018 registered as Doc. No.,44/2018, SRO, Neelankarai.

¶23

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, but had failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 31.10.2019.

¶24

It is contended by the applicant that the applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount. It is stated that as no repayment was forthcoming despite repeated requests, the applicant invoked the provisions of

¶25

¶26

SARFAESI Act and issued the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 12.11.2019 followed by Possession Notice dated 08.10.2020..

¶27

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and costs.

¶28

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendants remained absent and hence were called absent and set ex-parte on 20.05.2022.

¶29

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-20 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶32

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶33

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex-parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains

¶36

¶37

uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶38

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a home loan and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing and further as the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶39

13, During the pendency of the OA, applicant filed a Memo stating that a sum of Rs.1,56,91,500/- was realized by sale of schedule properties. The said memo was taken on file and part satisfaction of the OA claim was recorded by proceedings dated 05.09.2023.

¶40

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶41

(a) TA No.490 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶42

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.2,80,70,077.71p with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a., simple

¶43

¶44

from the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the schedule properties and other assets of the defendants.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28^th day of December, 2023)

¶50

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

¶51

Indian Bank v. Ms. S. Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Ms. S. Vijayalakshmi

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s Naviya Cashews

Bank of India versus Ravishankar

Mr Sivakumar and Mrs Rekha versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus R.Ramesh

M/s Canara Bank Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank versus T.R. Saravanan

Deutsche Bank Ag versus Kothari Bath Concepts