Allowed

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Mr P Sambathkumar

DRT19 May 2023TA/629/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by IDBI Bank for recovery of Rs.20,25,825/- plus interest from borrowers who defaulted on home, insurance, and top-up loans. The court accepted unchallenged bank evidence and awarded a reduced pendent lite interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,25,825/- with 10% pendent lite interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; defendants jointly and severally liable; asset sale permitted.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr P Sambathkumar — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 19^th day of May, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.629 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.450 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.629 of 2022)

¶7

IDBI Bank Ltd., Pudukottai Branch Represented by its Branch Head No.4085/12 & 4098/2, Palson Building South 4^th Street Pudukottai – 622 002

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. P. Sambathkumar S/o S. Palani Mudaliyar No.42/G, Maruthupandiar Nagar SIPCOT, Pudukkottai

¶11

Mrs. S. Uma Devi W/o P. Sambathkumar No.42/G, Maruthupandiar Nagar SIPCOT, Pudukkottai…Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s R. Palani Kumar Ramesh Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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 an aggregate sum of Rs.20,25,285/- with further interest at the rate of 9.65% per

¶15

¶16

annum with monthly rests from the date of the OA till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

The subject matter of the case is the “Home Loan Facility” availed by the defendants from the applicant.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants approached the applicant bank for sanctioning Housing Loan for the purpose of purchase of the schedule mentioned property and Top-up loan for construction thereof and the applicant considering the said request vide its sanction dated 30.12.2013 sanctioned Home Loan of Rs.11,44,500/-, Loan for Insurance Premium a sum of Rs.58,010/and Top-up loan of Rs.11,00,000/- to the defendants. It is stated that the defendants in order to secure the said facility executed Home Loan Agreement on 6.1.2014 and Loan for Insurance Premium Agreement on 29.01.2014 in favour of the applicant bank. It is also stated that the defendant agreed to repay the said loan along with interest in 140 installments of Rs.14,047/- each towards housing loan; Rs.712/- per months towards Loan Insurance Agreement and Rs.14,051/- towards top-up loan facility respectively.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that the 1^st defendant deposited the title deeds of the property more fully described in schedule to the OA with the applicant bank with an intention to create equitable mortgage and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 29.01.2014 registered as Doc. No.375 of 2014 on the file of SRO, Joint II, Pudukottai.

¶20

¶21

It is stated that the defendants having availed the credit facility defaulted in repayments and failed to regularize the loan account despite repeated demands and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and therefore the loan account was classified the case a NPA on 08.11.2015. As the defendants did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues, the applicant caused a legal notice on 26.11.2018 calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding dues.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that after availing the loan, the defendants were irregular in remitting the loan amount. The efforts of the applicant bank to make the defendants to settle the loan did not yield any result, and hence the applicant approached this Tribunal seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate allowing recovery of the amount due in the account.

¶23

Summons were taken out to the defendants and the same were served. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendants on 27.09.2019 they were called absent and set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 12 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-12on 08.03.2023.The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 17.04.2023 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶25

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendants?

¶26

¶27

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶28

These issues are considered together.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶30

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-12 along with the proof affidavit. Exhibit A-1 is the Sanction Letter of the applicant bank dated 30.12.2012 sanctioning home loan of Rs.11,44,579/- and Insurance premium loan of Rs.58,010/- to the defendants. Exhibit A-2 is the sanction letter of the applicant bank dated 30.12.2012 sanctioning Top-up loan of Rs.11,00,000/-to the defendants. Exhibit A-3 is the Home Loan Agreement dated 6.1.2014 executed by the defendants. Exhibit A-4 is the Loan for Insurance Premium Agreement dated 06.01.2014 executed by the defendants. Exhibit A-5 is the Home Loan Agreement for Top-up facility dated 29.01.2014 executed by the defendants. Exhibit A-6 is the Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 29.01.2014 executed by the 2^nd defendant registered as Doc. No.375 of 2014, SRO, Pudukottai. Exhibit A-7 is the Letter of Assignment dated 11.11.2018 issued by the applicant bank. Exhibit A-8 is the Statement of Accounts in respect of the loan accounts along with certificates under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act. Exhibit A-9 is the legal notice dated 26.11.2018 issued by the applicant. Exhibit A-10 is the returned covers of the legal notice. Exhibit A-11 is the Authorisation Letter and delegation of powers of the applicant bank. Exhibit A-12 is the sale deed dated 27.10.2003 executed by

¶31

¶32

R. Rajalakshmi in favour of S. Umadevi registered as Doc. No.3406/2003 on the file of SRO, Pudukottai.

¶33

Exhibits A-1 and A-2 evidences that at the request of the defendants the applicant sanctioned Home Loan of Rs.11,44,579/-, Loan for Insurance Premium of Rs.58,010/- and Top-up loan of Rs.11,00,000/- to the defendants. Exhibit A-3 to A-5 evidences that the defendants executed loan documents on 6.1.2014 in respect of the Home Loan Account and Loan for Insurance Premium and on 29.01.2014 in respect of Top-up loan account. Exhibit A-6 and A-12 evidences that the 2^nd defendant is the absolute owner of the OA schedule mentioned property and is empowered to deal with the same and she had deposited the title deeds with the applicant bank with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 29.01.2014 registered as Doc. No.375/2014 on the file of SRO, Pudukottai. Exhibit A-7 evidences that the applicant bank had assigned the account to the applicant bank’s branch at Pudukottai on 11.11.2018. Exhibit A-8, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized. Exhibit A-9 and A-10 evidences that the defendant defaulted in repayment and failed to regularize the loan account despite affording sufficient time and repeated reminders and hence the applicant on 26.11.2018 caused a legal notice on the defendant calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding dues but in vain. Exhibit A-11 evidences that

¶34

¶35

the applicant had authorized the Regional Head of the applicant to institute and defend the case on behalf of applicant.

¶36

The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with Exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendants. Point is answered accordingly.

¶37

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶38

In view of the fact that the instant loan availed by the defendants is Home Loan facility and also that the applicant had calculated and claimed interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendent lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates and therefore proceeds to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum (simple).

¶39

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, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶40

(a) TA No.629 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶41

¶42

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.20,25,825/- with further interest at the rate of 10% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till date of realization from the defendants jointly and severally, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendants.

¶43

(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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the19^th day of May, 2023)

¶48

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

¶49

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Mr P Sambathkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Mr P Sambathkumar

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

Srinivasa Traders versus South Indian Bank

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s.Bindu Appalam Depot

Arulvel versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Mr. K. Dhamotharan

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s Sri Ayyappa Enterprises

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s Gee Ess International