Allowed

State Bank of India v. D.Deenadhayalan

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/758/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Chennai allowed the Debt Recovery Application filed by State Bank of India against two defendants who failed to repay a housing loan. The court ordered recovery of the principal amount with interest and authorized the sale of mortgaged properties and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.35,35,488.92 with 9.20% p.a. interest; sale of mortgaged properties authorized; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus D.Deenadhayalan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.758 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.1/2022–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, RACPC Chennai, No.16, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

D.Deenadhayalan, Flalt No.2, G2, Pooni Illam, Ponniamman Koil Street, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai-600 091.

¶8

Babhi Larson, Flat No.2, G2, Pooni Illam, Ponniamman Koil Street, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai-600 091. … Defendants.

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.Parameshwari. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery

¶12

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.35,35,488.92 with

¶13

further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the

¶14

¶15

same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of the schedule mentioned mortgaged properties.

¶16

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

¶17

The applicant contends that the defendants had approached the applicant seeking Housing Loan of Rs.33,00,000/- for the purchase of schedule mentioned flat. The said facility was sanctioned on 31.03.2017 wherein the defendants had agreed to repay the same in 360 EMIs which varies periodically along with interest at the rate of 8.6% per

¶18

annum.

¶19

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶20

Apart from the execution of necessary loan documents, the defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties by deposit of the construction agreement and the sale deed.

¶21

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 25.10.2020.

¶22

¶23

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the applicant had on 07.11.2020 caused to issue a demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶25

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 08.07.2022.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A10 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶27

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is a Housing Loan the prayer for monthly rest is rejected as the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rates.

¶33

In view of the finding as entered above

¶34

i) TA No.758/2022 stands allowed.

¶35

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.35,35,488.92 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Thirty Five

¶36

¶37

Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Eight and Ninety Two paisa only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 9.20% p.a. from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 29^th day of December, 2023)

¶44

Sd./-

¶45

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

¶46

State Bank of India v. D.Deenadhayalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. D.Deenadhayalan

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 Overseas Bank versus R.Ramesh

M/s Canara Bank Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank versus T.R. Saravanan

Deutsche Bank Ag versus Kothari Bath Concepts

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari