Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. R. Sherman

DRT25 Mar 2024TA/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application for restitution of possession or recovery of money owing to a bank, approving the recovery certificate for the claimed amount plus interest after crediting recovered proceeds from asset sale, payable from the defendants personally or through sale of their assets. The court treated evidence as proved and un-rebutted.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate drawn for Rs. 30,89,519/- plus 9% simple interest per annum, permitting recovery personally or through sale of assets after crediting prior recovery of Rs. 20,25,000/-.

State Bank of India versus Mr. R. Sherman — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 25^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.35 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.516 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.35 of 2023)

¶7

State Bank of India RACP Centre, Ayyappanthangal No.50, AR Plaza, Mount Poonamallee High Road Ayyappanthangal, Chennai – 600 056

¶8

Migrated to State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch Red Cross Building, II Floor, No.32, Montieth Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 …Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. R. Sherman S/o Robert Massappa No.31,B2, GF, Rock Ville Apartment Agaramthen Main Road, Agaramthen Chennai – 600 073

¶11

Also at Flat No. G1, Ground Floor „A‟ Block, Golden Orchid, Bharathi Street Agaramthen, Chennai – 600 073

¶12

Mr. J. Arunraj W/o Jayabal No.45, Nethaji Street Kasturi Bai Nagar, Tambaram Chennai – 600 045 …Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s Nattarajan Gopnath Counsel for Defendants : Ex- parte

¶14

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 30,89,519/- with further interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum with monthly rests from 28.4.2018 from date of filing of the application till date of its realization and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

The above OA was originally filed before DRT-I and got transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶18

The brief facts of the case is as follows: -

¶19

(a) The defendants approached the applicant‟s Ambattur Industrial Estate Branch on 20.09.2014 and 30.09.2014 for grant of housing loan. The applicant considering the request of the defendants sanctioned Housing Term Loan of Rs.23,40,000/- on 10.10.2014, which is repayable in 240 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.69,384/-. The defendants executed necessary loan and security documents on 17.10.2014.

¶20

(b) The defendants deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned properties with the applicant bank on 26.9.2014 with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 3.6.2015 registered as Doc. No.3817 of 2015 on the file of SRO, Tambaram.

¶21

The Applicant further contents 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 defendants pay back the

¶22

¶23

amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application and hence the loan account was classified as NPA on 27.6.2016.

¶24

The summons issued to the defendant returned as “insufficient address” and hence paper publication was taken out in respect of defendants. Since the defendants failed to enter appearance they were called absent and set exparte on 19.12.2019.

¶25

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Exhibits A-1 to A-23, however, Exhibits A-1 to A-9 & A-12, A-14 to A-22 were marked subject to proof and relevancy.

¶26

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contention as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶27

(i) Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim?

¶28

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are decided together.

¶30

The Applicant evidence remained un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to produce 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 credit facility is an housing loan and TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at the rate of 9% simple.

¶31

¶32

During the pendency of the TA, the applicant filed a part satisfaction memo stating therein that the applicant has realized a sum of Rs.20.25,000/- by bringing the schedule mentioned property to sale and prayed for recording part satisfaction of the TA claim. This Tribunal by its order on the part satisfaction memo recorded part satisfaction of the TA claim for a sum of Rs.20,25,000/-.

¶33

In view of the above, the following order is passed: -

¶34

(a) TA No.35 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶35

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.30,89,519/- with future and pendente lite interest @ 9 % simple per annum from the date of filing of the TA till realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA (including the sum of Rs.20,25,000/- realized by sale of the secured asset) from the defendants personally and also by proceeding against and selling their assets.

¶36

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

¶37

(d) 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.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 25^th day of March, 2024)

¶42

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

¶43

State Bank of India v. Mr. R. Sherman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. R. Sherman

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

Hdfc Bank versus Kathiresan Kailasappan

Canara Bank versus Mr J Arul

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Simma Associates

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh