Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Senthil Kumar

DRT16 Aug 2023TA/587/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai disposed of a transfer application filed by State Bank of India for recovery. Although the OA sought recovery of Rs. 23 lakhs, the bank obtained a full settlement through the OTS scheme and requested the transfer of the original documents. The Tribunal allowed the settlement request.

What did the court decide?

Disposal as settled out of court; return of original documents (Ex A-1 to Ex A-26); refund of court fee without costs.

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

TA No. 587 of 2023

16.08.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 587 of 2023

¶9

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA No.217 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.587 of 2023)

¶10

State Bank of India

¶11

ARM Branch Chennai Rep. by its Chief Manager 44, 1^st Floor, Eldams Road Teyanampet Chennai – 600 018.

¶12

….Applicant

¶13

¶14

1. Mr.C.Senthil Kumar

¶15

S/o Chinnadurai No.2/38, North Street Kudithangi Thirupurambium PO Kumbakonam – 612 303

¶16

2. Mrs.B.Malarkodi

¶17

W/o Mr.Balasubramanian K No.25, Innambur Main Road Thirupurambium PO Kumbakonam – 612 303

¶18

….Defendants

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.N.Chinnakrishnan (Late) & E.Kumar

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This OA is filed by the applicant bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,02,237.52p together with future interest and costs.

TA No. 587 of 2023

16.08.2023

A memo is filed by applicant bank stating therein that during pendency of the above OA, defendants have approached applicant bank for settlement under OTS, which was accepted by applicant bank and accordingly, defendants had remitted a sum of Rs.9,28,996/- towards full and final settlement of the OA claim. Hence, applicant bank prayed that the OA claim may be treated as settled out of Court and applicant bank has also filed two memos praying for return of all original documents marked as exhibits Ex A-1 to Ex A-26 and for refund of court fees.

¶27

Perused. Memo is taken on record. Allowed. In the result, this OA is disposed of as settled out of Court (vide separate order), however without costs. All other interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed. Registry is directed to return

¶28

all original documents marked as Ex A-1 to Ex A-26 to applicant bank under proper acknowledgment and also verify the signatures and process refund of court fee as per extant guidelines.

¶29

4. With the above observations, OA stands disposed.

¶30

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 16^th day of August, 2023)

¶31

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Senthil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Senthil Kumar

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

Similar cases

Aruna Constructions versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus Nishanraj

K Lalitha versus Punjab National Bank

Ravanan versus Sundaram Home Finance Limited

M/s Annai Veilankannis Educational and Cultural Society versus Union Bank of India

Senthilnayakam versus Repco Bank