Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr.Harish

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/764/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an applicant bank's transfer application to recover an outstanding loan amount of approximately Rs. 62 lakhs from defendants who defaulted on a housing term loan. The court rejected the defendants' defense concerning title defects and panel lawyer negligence, permitting recovery from defendants and mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 61,94,200.70 with future and pendentilite interest @9% (simple) from defendants jointly and severally and by sale of mortgaged property. Issuance of Recovery Certificate direct

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr.Harish — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.764 OF 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.724/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, No.109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034.

¶6

… APPLICANT.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr.Harish

¶9

S/o.Mr.Selvakumar No.1, Venkatachala Naicken Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600005.

¶10

Mrs. S.Vaidehi, W/o.S.Harish, No.1, Venkatachala Naicken Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600005. … DEFENDANTS.

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : Ms.Sheela Venkatesh. Counsel for Defendants : M/s.T.S.N.Prabhakaran.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the

¶14

Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.61,94,200.70 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA

¶15

¶16

and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants

¶17

jointly and severally and also by sale of the mortgaged property.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The defendants had approached the applicant and got sanctioned a Term loan under Subha Graha Housing scheme for Rs.58,00,000/- for the purchase of a house.

¶21

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed by the borrower after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging them to repay the amount in 261 equal monthly installments of Rs.49,196/-. Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents the borrower had created security by way of equitable mortgage over immovable properties by MODT registered as Doc.No.668/2018 of SRO, Triplicane.

¶22

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account resulting the account becoming NPA on 14.03.2019. More over it came out the patta CA.No.1542 produced by the defendant found to a forged one and that the property belonged to Parthasarathy Swamy Temple, Triplicane, Chennai.

¶23

¶24

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to repay 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 request the applicant had cause to issue demand notice dt.06.05.2019 requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶25

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 OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶26

The defendant entered appearance and filed their reply statement contenting that at the time of availing the facility, the defendants were introduced to Mr.Vetrivelan who claims to be an advocate by the land broker one Mr.Srinivasan along with Mrs.Premavathi@ Prema, P.Rajendran @ Thiyagarajan, Balaji and the said persons certified that the property is having clear title. It is further contented that out of the sale consideration of Rs.83,00,000/-, the defendants had paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and had approached the applicant bank for balance sale consideration. It is also contended that the title document was scrutinized by the panel lawyer of the bank and only being found that the title perfect, the amount was disbursed. It is further contented

¶27

¶28

that on coming to know about the defective title, a complaint is lodged

¶29

against 5 persons including the lawyer who had scrutinized the loan application for the loan. The defendants are also disputing the right of Parthasarathy Temple and also contends that only as the panel lawyer of the Bank failed to find the defect in title, all these happened and on the above contentions, the defendants seeks for dismissal of OA.

¶30

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 A22 and got the same marked.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forward by the applicant is fortified by the evidence tendered by AW1 who sworn to the proof affidavit by producing and marking Exhs.A1 to A22. Even otherwise, the defendants have no dispute regarding any of the contentions of the applicant as the only defense put forth by the defendant is regarding the so claimed failure of

¶36

¶37

the panel lawyer to scrutinize the title document of the property. This

¶38

Tribunal is at lost as to how such a flimsy defense can be taken as a defense, by no stretch of imagination, the panel lawyer could be found accountable. Even assume the lawyer is accountable, the same will not exonerate the applicant from the liability.

¶39

The documents produced by the applicant are found admissible and sufficient to prove OA claim. The defendants had not raised any claim of set of or counter claim. More over no evidence is tendered from the side of defendants. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the mortgaged property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.

¶40

Taking into account the credit facility is a housing loan and interest claimed is sought to be compounded monthly, this Tribunal is not inclined to revisit the OA claim and the same is arrived at by calculating interest with monthly rest. However this Tribunal is allowing with pendentelite and future interest @9% (simple).

¶41

¶42

In view of the finding as entered above

¶43

i) TA.No.764 OF 2022 stands allowed.

¶44

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.61,94,200.70 (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Paisa only) with future and pendentilite interest @9% (simple) from the defendants jointly and severally and also by proceedings against their assets.

¶45

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

¶46

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for

¶47

which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the

¶48

date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr.Harish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr.Harish

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