Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. K. Stanely Kingley Immanuel

DRT26 May 2023TA/756/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-II Chennai allowed the application by State Bank of India for recovery of a housing loan amount of Rs. 31,60,834/- from the defendant couple. The Tribunal confirmed the loan default, accepted unchallenged documentary evidence, and awarded interest at 8% p.a. pending realization.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to realize Rs. 31,60,834/- plus 8% simple interest from filing date till realization, jointly and severally from defendants, with Recovery Certificate issuance.

State Bank of India versus Mr. K. Stanely Kingley… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of May, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.756 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.197 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.756 of 2022)

¶7

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

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. K. Stanely Kingley Immanuel S/o Mr. Kingsley Immanuel No.F-6, JJS, SUGI, No.116-117, Sankarapuram Sithalapakkam, Perumbakkam Chennai – 600 126

¶10

Mrs. Negenoth Ruth Princiess W/o Stanely Kingsley Immanuel No.F-6, JJS, SUGI, No.116-117, Sankarapuram Sithalapakkam, Perumbakkam

¶11

Chennai – 600 126 …Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s Suresh Law Associates Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of

¶15

Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.31,60,834/- with further interest at the rate of 7.10% per

¶16

¶17

annum with monthly rests from the date of the OA till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

¶18

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

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants by their application dated 9.6.2019 approached the applicant for grant of housing loan and considering the said request the applicant sanctioned housing loan of Rs.30,00,000/- subject to terms and conditions vide Arrangement Letter dated 30.06.2019, which was duly acknowledged by the defendants. It is stated that the defendant had on 30.6.2019 executed Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public.

¶20

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 12.01.2020. It is also stated that the defendants did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues despite repeated demands.

¶21

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.

¶22

¶23

Summons were taken out to the defendants and the same were returned unserved with endorsement “No such person” and hence were served with notice by way of substituted service by causing paper publication. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendants on 08.07.2022 they were called absent and set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 6 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-3 and as Exhibits A-5 forms part of Exhibit A-4 they are marked together as Exhibit A-4 on 10.03.2023. Exhibit A-5 is the authorization circular of the applicant bank. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 18.04.2023 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

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

¶27

These issues are considered together.

¶28

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

¶29

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-4 along with the proof affidavit. Exhibit A-1 is the Loan Application dated 9.6.2019 submitted by the applicant. Exhibit A-2 is the Arrangement Letter dated 30.06.2019 issued by the applicant and acknowledged

¶30

¶31

by the defendants. Exhibit A-3 is the Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public dated 30.06.2019 executed by the defendants. Exhibit A- 4 is the statement accounts in respect of the loan account along with certificates under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act. Exhibit A-5 is the authorization circular issued by the applicant bank.

¶32

Exhibit A-1 and A-2 evidences that the defendants by their Loan application dated 9.6.2019 approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan for purchase of property viz., Flat No.S2 in Second Floor, “Orchid Dreams Apartments” Plot No.248, S. No.734/18 (as per plan), Garudadri Street (as per plan), Sri Alamely Mangapuram Colony, Sholinganallur Village & Taluk, Kancheepuram and considering the said request the applicant sanctioned housing loan of Rs.30 lakhs to the defendants and the defendants acknowledged the same accepting the terms and conditions of sanction. Exhibit A-3 evidences that the defendants on 30.06.2019 executed Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public thereby agreeing to repay the loan amount in equated monthly installments of Rs.26,172/- together with interest @8.65% per annum with monthly rests. Exhibit A-4, 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-5 evidences that the applicant had authorized the various officer and Central Processing Centres to represented and institute the claim on behalf of the applicant.

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

In view of the fact that the instant loan are availed by the defendants is a housing and also that the applicant had calculated and claimed interest at contractual rates, 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).

¶37

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: -

¶38

(a) TA No.756 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶39

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.31,60,834/- with further interest at the rate of 8% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till date of realization from the defendants jointly and severally,

¶40

¶41

after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendants.

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 26^th day of May, 2023)

¶47

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

¶48

State Bank of India v. Mr. K. Stanely Kingley Immanuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. K. Stanely Kingley Immanuel

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

Canara Bank versus Mr. G. Govindasamy

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. N. Seerisha

Central Bank of India versus M/s Mrr Cashews

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Prabhu

Indian Overseas Bank, versus M/s. Hotel Saroj Krishna

Indian Bank versus S. v. Associates