Allowed

State Bank of India v. Paramesh

DRT27 Mar 2024OA/189/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte proceeding, the DRT allowed the Bank's OA for recovery of a housing loan debt of Rs. 38,11,075/-, directing realization of the principal and simple interest at 9% p.a. via personal liability or sale of assets and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed; Defendant liable to pay Rs. 38,11,075/- plus 9% p.a. simple interest; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

State Bank of India versus Paramesh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA No.189 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India Retail Assets Centralized Processing Centre No.16, Whannels Road First Floor, Egmore Chennai – 600 009 Represented by its Chief Manager …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. J. Paramesh S/o Shri Jogheesevanan No.23/6, Vannier Street Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094 …Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s Suresh Law Associates Defendant : Ex- parte

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,11,075/- together with interest at the rate of 5.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶11

The case of the applicant is as follows: -

¶12

The defendant approached the applicant for grant of housing loan by submitting Loan Application dated 27.08.2014 and the applicant considering the said

¶13

¶14

request sanctioned housing loan of Rs.41,54,000/- vide sanction dated 27.8.2014. The said loan is repayable in 223 equated monthly installments of Rs.18,628/- per month. The defendant executed necessary loan and security documents on 26.11.2014. It is stated that the said loan was converted into SMG-V-MAXGAIN on 10.1.2017, but the defendant did not take any steps to regularize the loan account.

¶15

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, he failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 16.5.2022.

¶16

It is contended by the applicant that the applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount. Hence the applicant issued a demand notice dated 18.5.2022 to the defendant under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant 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 costs.

¶18

The defendant remained absent and hence was called absent and set ex-parte on 26.09.2023.

¶19

¶20

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶22

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶23

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendant?

¶24

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶26

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained ex-parte. 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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and her assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶27

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a housing loan and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the OA and further as

¶28

¶29

the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶30

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: -

¶31

(a) OA No.189 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶32

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.38,11,075/- with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a., simple from the defendant, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received or recovered by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the schedule mentioned properties and other assets of the defendant.

¶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 under the Loan Accounts.

¶34

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 27^th day of March, 2024)

¶40

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

¶41

State Bank of India v. Paramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Paramesh

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

Canara Bank versus G. Edison

Bank of Baroda versus Jayakandan

State Bank of India versus Mr. S. Natarajan

State Bank of India versus Sri Vivekananda Builders

Canara Bank versus Mr. S. Pannerselvam

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Raam Oil Mills