Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. R. Venkata Ravikumar

DRT22 Sept 2023TA/771/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. Satisfying itself that the loan liability was proved, the Tribunal directed the defendant to pay Rs. 64,32,173 with reduced pendente lite interest or face sale of properties.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 64,32,173 with 8% annual simple interest from filing date; authority to sell schedule property.

State Bank of India versus Mr. R. Venkata Ravikumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No. 771 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.117 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.771 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 Manger …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. R. Venkata Ravikumar S/o Dr. V. Ramana Rao Flat A2B, Old No.89, New No.18, BBCL Navrathna Apartments Thirupathi Kudai Road, Ambattur Chennai – 600 058 …Defendant Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s M. Suresh Counsel for Defendant : Ex-parte

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendantseeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate forrecovery of a sum of Rs.64,32,173/- with further interest at the rate of 8.90% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the applicationtill the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule properties.

¶12

The subject matter of the case is the housing loan availed by the defendant from the Applicant Bank.

¶13

¶14

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant vide loan application dated 20.04.2018 for grant of housing loan for purchasing the schedule mentioned property and considering the said request the applicant vide sanction dated 26.04.2018 sanctioned housing loan of Rs.62,48,000/- to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant executed necessary loan and security documents on 27.04.2018. It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned property with the applicant with an intention to create equitable mortgage and confirmed the same by letter dated 08.04.2019and also executed Memorandum of Deposit dated 08.04.2019.

¶15

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of sanction and committed default in repayments and failed to regularize the loan accounts despite repeated request and hence the loan account was classified as NPA in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. It is stated that despite repeated requests the defendant did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues and hence the applicant issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 02.08.2019 calling upon the defendant to clear the outstanding dues.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that after availing the loan, the defendant was irregular in remitting the loan amount. The efforts of the applicant bank to make the defendant 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.

¶17

¶18

Summons were taken out to the sole defendant and the same was served. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendants continuously and on 13.06.2022 the defendants were called absent and set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 10 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-10 on 17.05.2023. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 07.07.2023 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶19

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

These issues are considered together.

¶23

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

¶24

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-10 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and rebutted. 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 defendant. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced

¶25

¶26

and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendant. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶27

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.

¶28

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is a housing loan and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

¶29

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: -

¶30

(a) TA No. 771 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶31

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.64,32,173/with further interest @8% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendant after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling theschedule property and other assets of the defendant.

¶32

¶33

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due as ordered above.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22^nd day of September, 2023)

¶38

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

¶39

State Bank of India v. Mr. R. Venkata Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. R. Venkata Ravikumar

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

Mrs S Saroja versus State Bank of India

S Paldurai versus Canara Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s.Sun Traders

A C Velmurugan versus City Union Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. v. Ammani

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Panneerselvam