Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. P. M. Srihari

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/318/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court found the applicant's evidence un-rebutted and entitled them to recover the principal sum plus simple interest at 8% p.a., granting credit for amounts already realized through SARFAESI Act proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate permitting recovery of Rs. 64,10,911.07 plus future interest at 8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing.

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. M. Srihari — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.318of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.128/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, SARC Division No. 16, Whannels Road, Egmore , Chennai – 600 008 …Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. P. M. Srihari S/o. Mr. P. Muthukrishnan No. 19/9, First Floor, Sait Colony, Second Street, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 ...Defendant

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Raj and Raj Associates 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 a total sum of Rs.64,10,911.07P due under the Housing

¶13

Loan credit facilities along with future interest and costs and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶14

¶15

The above Original Application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶16

The Applicant Bank contends that Housing Loan credit facilities of Rs. 29,10,000/-& Rs. 27,40,000/- and SBI Subiksha Insurance Loan credit facilities of Rs.88,980/(for both Home Loans independently)were availed by Defendant. It is also stated that the facilities were secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by the defendant, obliging him self to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶18

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

¶19

Summons was taken out and as defendant failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 17.07.2019.

¶20

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A27.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶22

¶23

i. Whether the Applicant Bank had proved the TA claim?

¶24

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank 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 TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, prayer for monthly rests is declined and interest is awarded at 8% p.a. (simple).During the pendency of the TA, the applicant has filed a part satisfaction Memo vide – SR No. 2704 dated 14.03.2024 stating that schedule properties were sold under SARFAESI Act and realized a sum of Rs.51,50,000/-.

¶27

In view of the above:

¶28

i. TA. No: 318of 2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.64,10,911.07P(Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Eleven and Seven Paise Only/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 8%p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant personally

¶30

¶31

and his assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA including the amount of part satisfaction of Rs. 51,50,000/-.

¶32

iii. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendants.

¶33

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

¶34

v. Applicant Bank 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.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 26^th day of March, 2024)

¶38

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

¶39

State Bank of India v. Mr. P. M. Srihari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. P. M. Srihari

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

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh

State Bank of India versus Cm Atheequr Rahman Co.

State Bank of India versus P. Kaviyarasan

Indian Bank versus M/s. Balaji Enterprises