Allowed

State Bank of India v. Dinesh Kumar

DRT23 Nov 2023TA/542/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a Recovery Certificate against two respondents. The court found the loan default proven and sanctioned recovery of outstanding dues with 9% simple interest, deducting amounts realized from mortgaged property sales.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued to realize Rs.35,40,943/ plus 9% simple interest from filing date, deducting Rs.19,85,000 recovered via property sale.

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

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.542 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.118 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.542 of 2023)

¶7

State Bank of India Retail Assets Centralized Processing Centre No.16, Whannels Road, First Floor, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 Represented by its Manager …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Dinesh Kumar. B. S/o Mr. Baskar No.70, A3, G1, Mullai Apartments, Selva Nagar, Varadharajapuram, Mudichur, Chennai – 600 048

¶10

Mr. B. Surya Kumar S/o. Mr. Baskar, No.70, A3, G1, Mullai Apartments, Selva Nagar, Varadharajapuram, Mudichur, Chennai – 600 048 …Defendants Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s M. Suresh Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This Original Application herein after been referred as OA is filed under section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1983, seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.35,40,943/-. The defendants had executed the arrangement letter, memorandum of loan agreement dated 23.06.2017, agreement of mortgage and memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

¶13

¶14

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendant though under taken to repay the amount promptly and regularly had failed to repay the amount promptly and regularly resulting the account being in default. The repeated demands by applicants officials did not evoke any response and the account is declared as NPA. It is also stated that the measures under the provisions of the SARFAESAI is taken. Since the applicant is entitled to get the amount due recovered this OA is filed.

¶15

Summons take out to the defendant and despite service on the defendants there was no appearance. Hence defendants were set exparte on 14.12.2021.

¶16

The applicant and let in evidence through AW1 who had filed his proof affidavit in conformity with the pleadings in the OA and got marked ExtA1 to A13 out of which Ext.A5, A7 to A13 were marked subject to proof.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and considered the OA claim in the light of evidence. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter. i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim. ii) What orders is to be passed.

¶18

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶19

The evidence tendered by the applicant is found to be in conformity with the OA claim. The documents produced by the applicant one found to be admissible. The availment of credit facility and its disbursement are proved by the loan application, Arrangement letters. Loan Agreement and agreement of mortgage marked as Ext.A1 to A4 respectively. The creation of mortgage is

¶20

¶21

proved by Ext.A5 memorandum of deposit of title deeds and Ext.A6 to A9. The initiation of measures under SARFAESI Act is proved by Ext.A10. it is also stated in Para 15 that the mortgaged property was sold an amount of Rs.19,85,000/- was realised. The statement of accounts produced as Ext.A11 evidences that the account is in default and as on date of filing of the OA, the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account.

¶22

It is also evident that the claim of applicant is well within the period of limitation and that there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶23

Since the credit facility is a housing loan and the asset is already sold, this Tribunal is of the view that pendalite and future interest is to be awarded at simple rate.

¶24

In the result

¶25

i) TA 542 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶26

ii) The applicant allowed to realize an amount of Rs.35,40,943/- with further interest at 9% (simple) from the date of filing of the OA, after deducting all the amount received or recovered during the pendency of the OA, including the amount of Rs.19,85,000/-recovered by selling the schedule property.

¶27

iii) The above amount is to be recovered by proceeding against defendants and their other assets.

¶28

iv) A Recovery Certificate shall be drawn on above terms and issued to the Recovery Officer to effect Recovery as aforesaid.

¶29

v) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipts of copy of this order.

¶30

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21) of RDB Act r/w Rules 16 of DRT (procedure) rules.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

State Bank of India v. Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Dinesh Kumar

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

K Rameshkumar versus State Bank of India

N Sailakshmi versus Indian Bank

P Inbaraj versus 72

Indian Bank, (Allahabad Bank) versus M/s. Progressive Engineering Works

Thangamani oil Stores versus Indian Overseas Bank

M/s. Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/s V.S Enterprises