Allowed

State Bank of India, v. Mr.D.Ravikumar, S/o.Mr.Duraisami

DRT22 Mar 2024TA/23/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for a recovery certificate. The court found the claim proved based on un-rebutted evidence, awarded principal with future and pendentelite interest at 8% p.a., and ordered the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 52,48,617/- with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a.

State Bank of India, versus Mr.D.Ravikumar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.23 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.108/2022 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, RACPC, Anna Nagar, Block No.97, AF Block, Ajantha Towers, 4^th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. IFSC Code: SBIN0015440. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr.D.Ravikumar, S/o.Mr.Duraisami, Flat No.A2, Ground Floor (North Facing), BSA Flats, Bluestone Construction, PLO No.14, Amalanathan Street, Venkateswaran Nagar, Pozhichalur, Chennai – 600 074. PAN No:AQNPR3788D. … Defendant.

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.A.Kumar. Defendant : Exparte.

¶10

…… ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.52,48,617/- due in Housing Loan availed by the

¶13

defendant.

¶14

¶15

The Applicant contends that the defendant availed Housing Loan of Rs.39,00,000/- for purchase of flat. It is further stated that the said facility was secured by schedule mentioned properties.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

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

¶18

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 01.09.2022.

¶19

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A10.

¶20

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶21

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶22

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶23

Both these issues are decided together.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence, the Applicant is found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side and the loan availed is for housing purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @8% p.a. (simple).

¶27

In view of the above

¶28

i) TA No.23/2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.52,48,617/(Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousands Six Hundred and Seventeen only) with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant and from his assets and also by sale of schedule mentioned property after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶30

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶31

¶32

iv) 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.

¶33

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

¶34

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶35

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 22^nd day of March, 2024)

¶36

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

¶37

State Bank of India, v. Mr.D.Ravikumar, S/o.Mr.Duraisami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India, v. Mr.D.Ravikumar, S/o.Mr.Duraisami

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

Syndicate Bank versus Sanswe Dairy and Two Others

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Balaji Enterprises

Canara Bank versus R Dhandapani and Two Others

Hdfc Bank versus Kathiresan Kailasappan

Canara Bank versus Mr J Arul

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Simma Associates