Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Raj Kumar

DRT25 Sept 2024TA/1140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, for recovery of a housing loan default. The Tribunal allowed the application, granting a recovery certificate for the principal sum with interest at 9% simple per annum and ordered sale of the mortgaged property in case of non-payment.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate directing recovery of Rs.39,11,327 plus simple interest @9% p.a. from filing date, and power to sell the mortgaged property.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Raj Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶2

25.09.2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2024

¶6

Present: SHRI A.S. JAYACHANDRA Presiding Officer (In–charge)

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 1140 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT-II, Chennai and numbered as OA 888/2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA 1140/2023)

¶9

M/s. Indian Overseas Bank Ashok Nagar Branch No.9, Dr. Natesan Road, Chennai – 600 083 Rep by its Chief Manager .... Applicant -Vs-

¶10

Mr. C. Raj Kumar S/o. Chinnayapillai, 24/112, P.P. Nagar, 5^th Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. ..... Defendant

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s. K. Radhakrishnamurthy Defendant was set ex-parte on : 27.07.2021

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,11,327/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Seven only) due under Housing Loan Facility repayable together with interest at the rate of 11.95% per annum with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization in full and for sale of schedule mentioned property along with costs of this application.

¶15

Originally the application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA

¶16

No.888/2019, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance,

¶17

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶18

¶19

25.09.2024

¶20

DFS, dated 04.10.2022, OA No.888/2019 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1140/2023.

¶21

Brief facts of the case :- The sole defendant approached the applicant bank for a Housing Loan of Rs.20 lakhs by way of his application dated 25.02.2011. The same was sanctioned on 01.03.2011 under Subha Gruha Housing Scheme for purchase of a Flat. It is the allegation that the entire loan amount was availed by the defendant on 02.03.2011 and the defendant executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Undertaking to repay in instalments and also Housing Loan agreement. The loan was to be repaid in 180 equal monthly instalments of Rs.21,188/- per month from July, 2011.

¶22

It is alleged that the defendant had deposited the title deeds on 11.04.2011 in token of having obtained the loan and the same was deposited with an intention to create equitable mortgage, which is also registered vide Document No.2351/2011 dated 11.04.2011, before the Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam.

¶23

It is further alleged that the defendant was irregular in payments and the account is classified as NPA on 01.01.2013.

¶24

Applicant bank also submits that there was a case registered with CBI in RC No.16A 2013 CBI / ACB Chennai and certain documents were seized by the CBI for investigation.

¶25

Summons was ordered to sole defendant and the same was returned with remark as ‘no such person’. Applicant bank had caused paper publication and filed proof thereof. Defendant remained absent and no written statement was also filed and hence was placed ex-parte on 27.07.2021 by the Ld. Predecessor.

¶26

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶27

¶28

25.09.2024

¶29

IA No.1139/22 was filed by applicant bank to dispense with production of original documents and to adduce secondary evidence on the ground that the same were handed over to Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai by Proceeding No.Rc.No.16A 2013 CBI/ACB/Chennai dated 08.11.2013 and the same was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor on 07.07.2022, subject to replacement of the same with the original documents as and when received from CBI.

¶30

The applicant bank examined Ms. Soumyashree Rout, Manager as AW-1 and deposed to the facts of the case. Ex A-1 to Ex A-10 filed by applicant bank were taken on record and marked as secondary evidence.

¶31

During the course of hearing, applicant bank wanted to rely on the additional evidence and had filed IA No.1624/24 praying to mark photocopies of additional documents as Exh A-11 to A-17. Ld. Counsel submitted that if the additional evidence is not accepted, the case of the applicant bank would be jeopardized. Applicant bank filed additional proof affidavit of Ms. Dipa Kumari. She is examined as AW-2 and the additional documents are taken on record and marked as Exh.A11 to Exh.A17.

¶32

Applicant bank had filed additional proof affidavit of Ms. Dipa Kumari, Chief Manager of applicant bank dated 28.08.2024 submitting therein that upon request of defendant, Housing Loan of Rs.20 lakhs was sanctioned, which was availed by defendant after duly executing loan and security documents in favour of applicant bank on 02.03.2011. It is also deposed that thereafter, as defendant committed default in repayment, loan account became NPA on 01.01.2013. It is further submitted that by routine inspection, it was found out that this defendant along with other home loan borrowers, with the help of the then Senior Manager and Builders

¶33

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶34

25.09.2024

¶35

¶36

had committed fraud and obtained loans. Upon complaint given by Chief Regional Manager to SP, Anti Corruption Wing, CBI on 20.04.2013 vide letter dated ROII/VIGI/86/2012-2013, CBI had registered the case vide FIR No.RC/16A/2013 (RC MAI 2013 A0016 CBI ACB) dated 20.04.2013 and all the original documents were seized by CBI on 08.11.2013 from the branch and the case is still pending before CBI. It is further submitted that subsequent to filing of OA, applicant bank had sent request letters dated 24.03.2022 and 09.05.2022 requesting CBI authorities to provide certified copies of documents pertaining to the Housing Loans. Applicant bank had enclosed copies of complaint dated 20.04.2013, FIR dated 22.08.2013 and request letters dated 24.03.2022 and 09.05.2022, Proof of disbursement of loan amount and request letter by defendant for transfer of loan amount to SB Account of builder, in support of their contentions.

¶37

With the available material evidence on record, the only point that arises for consideration in this application is:-

¶38

Whether the applicant bank is entitled for the recovery of the amount claimed in the application from the defendant? If so, what relief?

¶39

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. Perused the OA averments and the evidence available on record.

¶40

14. Answer to the point: -

¶41

14.1 To prove its claim, the applicant bank examined the above witnesses - AW1 and got marked 10 documents, examined AW2 and got marked 7 documents respectively. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remains unchallenged and the say of the witnesses AW1 and AW2 remains unrebutted.

¶42

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶43

25.09.2024

¶44

¶45

14.2 AW1 in her affidavit had re-iterated the facts on oath and she relied on Exh.A1 to A10. Exh. A1 is Application by Defendant dated 25.02.2011, Exh.A2 is Sanction Letter by applicant bank dated 01.03.2011, Exh.A3 is Demand Promissory Note for Rs.20 lakhs dated 02.03.2011 executed by the Defendant, Exh.A4 is Letter of Undertaking and repayment executed by the Defendant dated 02.03.2011, Exh.A5 is Housing Loan Agreement executed by the Defendant dated 02.03.2011, Exh.A6 is Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds executed by the Defendant dated 11.04.2011, Exh.A7 is Statement of Account, , Exh.A8 is Sale Agreement executed between Mr. C. Raj Kumar, the borrower herein and Mr. R. Veeraraghavan dated 05.01.2011, Exh.A9 is the Construction Agreement between Mr. C. Raj Kumar and M/s V.V. Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. dated 05.01.2011, Exh.A10 is the Sale Deed in favour of Mr. C. Raj Kumar– Regd Doc No.1251/2011 dated 02.03.2011.

¶46

14.3 AW2 in her affidavit had reiterated the facts on oath and she relied on Exh.A11 to A17. Exh.A11 is Complaint by applicant bank’s Head Office dated 20.04.2013, Exh.A12 is FIR Copy by CBI /ACB dated 22.08.2013, Exh.A13 is Request Letter by applicant bank dated 24.03.2022 to The Inspector of Police, CBI Anti Corruption Branch, Exh.A14 is Request Letter by applicant bank dated 09.05.2022 to The Inspector of Police, CBI Anti Corruption Branch, Exh.A15 is Proof of SB Account of defendant evidencing disbursal of Rs.20 lakhs, Exh.A16 is Address proof of defendant, Exh.A17 is Request letter by defendant dated 02.03.2011 requesting the applicant bank to transfer the Housing Loan amount of Rs.20 lakhs to M/s VV Home Makers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai.

¶47

This Tribunal has carefully perused the pleadings and also evidence available on record. The allegations found in the OA goes unrebutted. Defendant

¶48

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶49

25.09.2024

¶50

¶51

remained ex-parte. The say of AW1 and AW2 goes unrubutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with Exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has proved the OA claim against the defendant. Thus the point for determination is answered in the affirmative.

¶52

For the reasons stated as above, that the applicant bank is entitled for Recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,11,327/- in respect of Housing Loan facility. As far as the interest lis pendens and future interest is concerned, the same is to be considered in the light of the following circumstances:

¶53

(a) This being a Housing Loan, which rate of interest varies from time to time, cannot be lost sight of;

¶54

(b) The averments in the OA itself says that there has been some kind of defalcation of funds or fraud having been committed with the help of the then Senior Manager and the builders, for which the defendant cannot be saddled with future interest at the contractual rates.

¶55

(c) There has been delay in disposal of the case for nearly five years for various reasons. This Tribunal being vested with additional charge from 11.06.2024 has taken note of that the defendant is not responsible for the delay in disposal of the case.

¶56

For the above reasons, it is just and necessary that the interest from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realisation on the sum adjudged shall be at the rate of 9% (simple)

¶57

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶58

25.09.2024

¶59

¶60

In the result, application is allowed granting recovery certificate as follows:

¶61

(a) The applicant bank is entitled for Recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,11,327/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three hundred and Twenty Seven only) due under Housing Loan facility together with further interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of application till the date of realization against the defendant.

¶62

(b) It is further ordered that in case of default of payment by the defendant, the applicant bank is entitled to sell the schedule mentioned property in terms of the order in para (a) supra and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the amount due.

¶63

(c) It is further ordered that amount remitted or realized, if any, during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendant.

¶64

(d) The applicant bank is entitled for costs of this application.

¶65

(e) Schedule mentioned in the OA shall form part of this final order

¶66

The applicant bank is directed to file costs memo within two weeks of the receipt of this order.

¶67

Issue recovery certificate in favour of the applicant bank in terms of this final order.

¶68

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶69

¶70

25.09.2024

¶71

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

¶72

Rule 16 read with Rule 2(c) of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶73

Sd/(A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER (In-charge) DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶74

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this 25^th day of September,

¶75

¶76

Annexure:-

¶77

List of Exhibits marked by Applicant

¶78

Detailed Schedule of Immovable Property.

¶79

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶80

¶81

25.09.2024

¶82

Exhibits marked by applicant bank

¶83

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
	AW-1
1.	ApplicationbyDefendant dated25.02.2011	A-1
2.	Sanction LetterbyApplicantBankdated 01.03.2011	A-2
3.	Demand Promissory Note for Rs.20 lakhs dated 02.03.2011	A-3
4.	LetterofUndertaking andrepayment dated 02.03.2011	A-4
5.	HousingLoan Agreement dated 02.03.2011	A-5
6.	Memorandumofdeposit oftitle deed dated11.04.2011	A-6
7.	Statement of Accounts	A-7
8.	Sale Agreement executed between Mr. C. Raj Kumar and Mr. R. VeeraraghavantheBorrowerdated 05.01.2011	A-8
9.	Construction Agreement executed between Mr. C. Raj KumarandM/sV.V. HomeMakers dated 05.01.2011	A-9
10.	Sale Deed in favour of Mr. C. Raj Kumar – Doc No.1251/2011dated 02.03.2011	A-10
	AW-2
11.	Complaint byApplicant’sHead Office dated20.04.2023	A-11
12.	FIR Copy by CBI/ACB dated22.08.2013	A-12
13.	RequestLetterby applicant dated24.03.2022	A-13
14	Request Letter by applicant dated 9.05.2022	A-14
15	Proof of SB account belongs to defendant and disbursement of loan for Rs. 20Lakhs dated22.06.2011	A-15
16	Address proof of defendant	A-16
17	Requestletterby the defendant dated 02.03.2011	A-17

¶84

Sd/(A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER (In-charge) DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶85

TA No.1140/2023 (E)

¶86

¶87

25.09.2024

¶88

Schedule of immovable property

¶89

All that piece and parcel of vacant land & building bearing Flat No. F-1, First Floor, Flat measuring 580 sq.ft along with 7.47% (179.28 sq.ft) undivided share out of 2400 sq.ft bearing at Plot No.38, T. K. Pani Street, Periyar Nagar, Nesapakkam, Chennai – 600 092, comprised in Survey No. 105/3, situate in Nesapakkam Village, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, bounded on the:

¶90

North by	:	Vacant Lan
South by	:	Road
East by	:	Vacant Land
West by	:	Land belonging to Panneer Selvam

¶91

The property lies in the Registration District of Chennai South and Sub Registration District of Virugambakkam.

¶92

Sd/(A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER (In-charge) DRT-III, CHENNAI

Indian Overseas Bank v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Raj Kumar

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Masila

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Optical Expression

Ss Impex versus Indian Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ramachandra

Indian Overseas Bank versus Malathi

Indian Overseas Bank versus Narayanan