Allowed

State Bank of India v. Pushparaj

DRT20 Mar 2024OA/140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a home loan default. The court found the claim proved and ordered recovery of the principal, future, and pendentelite interest at 9% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.87.14 lacs with future and pendentelite interest @ 9% p.a. to be realized against defendants jointly, severally, and assets.

State Bank of India versus Pushparaj — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 20^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.140 of 2023

¶4

State Bank of India, No.2, Kanniyakulam Road, Rahman Complex, Villupuram 605 602. Represented by its Chief Minister … Applicant.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Mr. S.Pushparaj, S/o. Late Sellaiyan, No.24, Govindaraja Perumal Street, Villupuram Taluk&District

¶7

Mrs.K.Gowri,

¶8

W/o. S. Pushparaj, No.24, Govindaraja Perumal Street, Villupuram Taluk&District …Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Suresh Law Associates Defendants : Exparte.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶11

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.87,14,568/- due in the Home loan and Home Loan Insurance cover availed by the defendants.

¶12

¶13

The Applicant contends that a Home loan of Rs.50,00,000/- and Funding of Home Loan Insurance cover of Rs.2,75,000/- under Home loan were availed by the defendants for which 2^nd defendant stood as grantor. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶14

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶15

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 09.10.2023.

¶16

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A12.

¶17

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶18

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim?

¶19

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶20

Both these issues are decided together.

¶21

The Applicant’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and

¶22

are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be

¶23

¶24

entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @ 9% p.a. (simple).

¶25

In view of the above:

¶26

i) OA No.140 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶27

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.87,14,568/(Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the OA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets including the sale of schedule mentioned mortgaged properties, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶28

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.

¶29

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Rules, 1993.

¶34

(Dictated to steno2, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day of March, 2024)

¶35

Sd./-

¶36

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

¶37

State Bank of India v. Pushparaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Pushparaj

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

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased)

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Agrubber Industtry

Bank of India versus Durga Granites

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T.