Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. S.Arunagiri

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/544/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the transfer application seeking recovery of Rs. 75,39,945.64 plus interest. Finding the claim admissible and within limitation, the court awarded 10% simple interest and permitted recovery from the defendant's assets and scheduled property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 75,39,945.64 plus interest at 10%, authorization to sell scheduled properties, and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mr. S.Arunagiri — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.544 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA No.163/2022 DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

STATE BANK OF INDIA, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Red Cross Buildings, II floor, No.32, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai-8. Rep.by its Deputy Manager.

¶7

… APPLICANT.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr. S.Arunagiri, S/o. Mr.S.Selvaraj, Door No.11, GSSG Bungalow, Near Char Rasta, Dauletabad Daman Patalia Road, Bhimpore-396210.

¶10

And also residing at

¶11

No.36, First Cross Street, Gowri Nagar, Mugalivakkam, Chennai-600105.

¶12

And also residing at

¶13

Thenpakkam Village, Kolathur Post, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. … DEFENDANT Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Suresh Law Associates. Counsel for Defendant : M/s.P.Veeraraghavan.

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.75,39,945.64 with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant by selling the schedule mentioned properties and also by proceeding personally against the defendant.

¶17

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶18

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

¶19

The defendant being the borrower had applied for and availed the following facilities from the applicants.

¶20

SL.NO	Credit Facility	Amount
1.	Home loan	Rs.49,90000/-
2.	SBI Suraksha loan	Rs. 2,05,115/-

¶21

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution

¶22

of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging him to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶23

¶24

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendant had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties which was extended to the second facility.

¶25

Even though the defendant had obliged himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, he failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA with effect from 29.02.2020.

¶26

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting him to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount.

¶27

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant had 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 cost.

¶28

Even as the defendant filed a reply statement denying the averments in the OA, the availment of credit facility creation of mortgage and defaults occurred in the account are admitted. The defendant also contends that payments made by him were not properly given credit to. The reason of Covid-19 was also projected for the reason of

¶29

¶30

default. The defendant further contends that the bank was not co-

¶31

operative for settlement.

¶32

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A10. No counter proof affidavit was filed by the defendant.

¶33

Heard the counsel for both sides and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence, proof affidavit and written statement. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter.

¶34

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim?

¶35

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant did not choose to adduce any defense evidence. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the applicant was found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant and marked as Exh.A10 it is evident that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which

¶38

¶39

the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and his assets including by proceeding against the scheduled property. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the applicant has claimed contractual rate of interest from the date of filing the OA, taking note of fact that the applied rate of interest is on the higher side, this Tribunal is of the opinion that pendentelite and future interest can be awarded at a reduced rate of @10% (simple) is awarded as pendentelite and future.

¶40

In view of the finding as entered above

¶41

i) TA.No.544/2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 75,39,945.64 being the total due with future and pendentelite interest @ 10% from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶42

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendant and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶43

¶44

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms.

¶45

v) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶47

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd./PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶50

(T.RAJESH)

¶51

State Bank of India v. Mr. S.Arunagiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. S.Arunagiri

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

Indian Bank versus M/s. Royal Agro and Diary Limited

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

Thangamani oil Stores versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India, versus R.M.Ezhilarasu

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr.S.Rengaraj

Idbi Bank versus Ramajayam R