Allowed

State Bank of India, v. Aboobabu Md Shafi

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/821/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer application regarding housing and suraksha loans, the Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's claim against two joint borrowers, permitting recovery of the outstanding principal and interest with a certified recovery order against scheduled properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 51,35,568/- with interest; sale of schedule properties; issuance of recovery certificate;

State Bank of India, versus Aboobabu Md Shafi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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

TA.No.821 OF 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.74/2020–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

State Bank of India,

¶6

Rep. by its Authorised Officer, RACPC Chennai, No.16, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Aboobabu Md Shafi,

¶10

6, Zackir Hussain Street, Muthamizh Nagar, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075.

¶11

S.Nadeera, 6, Zackir Hussain Street, Muthamizh Nagar, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : Ms.K.Parameshwari. Defendants : Exparte.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.51,35,568/- with

¶15

¶16

further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

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

¶18

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶19

The defendants had applied for and availed a housing loan for Rs.41,10,000/- and SBI Suraksha loan for Rs.2,34,448/- from the applicant.

¶20

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of

¶21

necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶22

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties and also executed a registered MODT.

¶23

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 31.08.2018.

¶24

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the

¶25

¶26

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 03.09.2018 caused to issue a demand notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶27

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.

¶28

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 06.12.2021.

¶29

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 A9 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶33

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. 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 home loan pendentelite and future interest is awarded at simple rate.

¶36

In view of the finding as entered above

¶37

i) TA No.821/2023 stands allowed.

¶38

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 51,35,568/(Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Thirty Five Thousands Five Hundred and Sixty Eight only) with future and pendentelite interest @11.35% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants

¶39

¶40

after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received

¶41

during the pendency of the TA.

¶42

iii) The schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ properties 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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Sd./-

¶49

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

¶50

State Bank of India, v. Aboobabu Md Shafi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India, v. Aboobabu Md Shafi

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