Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. Mr. S. Karunakaran

DRT18 Mar 2024OA/402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of home loan dues under RDB Act as the defendant's claim remained unproved due to absence. The Tribunal permitted realization of the claimed amount plus reduced interest.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed; Applicant permitted to realize Rs.39,26,836/- plus interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Karunakaran — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 18^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

OA No.402 of 2022

¶6

IDBI Bank Limited Greams Road Branch No.37, P.M. Towers Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006 …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. S. Karunakaran S/o Mr. G. Swaminathan 12B, Type I, Quarters, Block-28 Kuringpadi, Neyveli Cuddalore – 607 807 …Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s S. Sathiyanarayanan 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 defendant for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.39,26,836/- comprising a sum of Rs.18,83,846/- together with interest at the rate of 7.25% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under Home Loan Account and a sum of Rs.20,42,990/- together with interest at the rate of 7.25% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under Home Loan Top Up Account from the date of filing of the application till the

¶12

¶13

date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶14

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

¶15

(a) The defendant approached the applicant bank for grant of a home loan for purchasing the schedule mentioned property and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned Home Loan of Rs.18,50,000/- vide its sanction dated 22.02.2011. In furtherance to the same, the defendant executed loan documents on 24.2.2011 and 25.02.2011.

¶16

(b) The defendant again approached the applicant for grant of Home Top Up Loan of Rs.16,00,000/- and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned the same vide sanction letter dated 29.8.2018. It is stated that the defendant executed necessary loan documents on 30.08.2018.

¶17

(c) The defendant deposited the title deeds of his property more fully described in Schedule to the OA with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same in favour of applicant and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 10.09.2018 registered as Doc. No.9749 of 2018 on the file of SRO, Selaiyur.

¶18

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, but had failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 08.06.2019.

¶19

¶20

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. The applicant issued recall notice dated 19.07.2019 calling upon the defendant to clear the outstanding dues but in vain.

¶21

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.

¶22

The defendant remained absent and hence was set ex-parte on 10.05.2023.

¶23

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-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶26

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

¶27

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

¶30

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 (including the schedule mentioned properties). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶31

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a housing loan and the interest rates have come down considerably and in view of the fact that the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the OA this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite and future interest be awarded at reduced rates.

¶32

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, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶33

(a) OA No.402 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶34

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.39,26,836/with future and pendentelite interest @7% p.a., simple from the defendant, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the

¶35

¶36

amounts received / recovered by them during the pendency of OA and also by sale of the schedule mentioned property and other assets of the defendant.

¶37

I 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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18^th day of March, 2024)

¶42

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

¶43

Idbi Bank Limited v. Mr. S. Karunakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. Mr. S. Karunakaran

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

State Bank of India versus M/s First Frame Media and Entertainment Solutions

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. R. Nagarajan

M/s City Union Bank Limited versus Mr. K. Sakthivel

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar

Union Bank of India versus Mr K Ramalingam and Fifty Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Indo Shoes