Allowed

State Bank of India v. S.Balaji

DRT19 Mar 2024TA/262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for a recovery certificate. The court found the evidence un-rebutted and approved the claim of Rs. 22,57,339.24 plus interest, directing issuance of a certificate to the Recovery Officer for joint and several recovery from the defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 22,57,339.24 plus 9% p.a. simple interest for joint and several recovery.

State Bank of India versus S.Balaji — Consumer Protection | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 19^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.262 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.26/2021 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, RACPC, Chennai. No.16, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Balaji, 28, Ayyappan Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.

¶10

D.Gayathiri, 28, Ayyappan Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053. … Defendants.

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.Parameshwari. Defendants : Exparte.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.22,57,339.24 due in Housing Loan and SBI Suraksha

¶15

Loan availed by the defendants.

¶16

¶17

The Applicant contends that the defendants availed Housing Loan of Rs.20,06,199/- and SBI Suraksha Loan of Rs.45,095/-. It is stated that the said facilities were secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶18

It is further stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶19

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.

¶20

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 30.05.2022.

¶21

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

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶23

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶24

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

¶27

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and 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. During the pendency of the TA, the applicant has filed a part satisfaction memo stating that the schedule mentioned property was sold and realized a sum of Rs.17,85,000/- and the same is recorded. Since the facility is for housing loan and the TA 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).

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) TA No.262/2023 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.22,57,339.24 (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousands Three Hundred Thirty Nine and Paise Twenty Four only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets including the sale of schedule mentioned properties after giving credit to all

¶31

¶32

the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of

¶33

the TA including the amount of part satisfaction.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 19^th day of March, 2024)

¶39

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

¶40

State Bank of India v. S.Balaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. S.Balaji

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

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Karunakaran

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr K Ramalingam and Fifty Others

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises