Allowed

State Bank of India v. Suresh Muthu T

DRT18 Mar 2024TA/448/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application, the bank proved the disbursement of a car loan and the defendant's default. The Tribunal allowed the claim for recovery of the outstanding principal and reduced interest rates pending realization.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.12,72,264/with future interest @9% p.a. allowed; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Suresh Muthu T — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 18^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.448 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.180 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.448 of 2022)

¶7

State Bank of India R.A.C.P. Centre At Door No.D128, III & IV Floor D-Blcok, Plot No.676, First Main Road Near Chinthamani Circle Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102 Rep. by its Chief Manager & Authorised Officer …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. T. Suresh Muthu S/o Thulukkanam No.1, Ramar Koil Street Agarm, Kandigai, Thiruvallur Pincode : 601 103 …Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. Nattarajan Gopinath Defendant : Ex- parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,72,264/- together with interest at the rate of 14.90% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for sale of hypotheca.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows: -

¶16

The defendant approached the applicant for grant of Car Loan by submitting loan application dated 18.1.2016 for purchasing a car and the applicant considering the said request vide sanction letter dated 18.1.2016 sanctioned Auto Loan – SBI Car Loan Scheme a sum of Rs.12,95,000/-. The defendant purchased Hyundai Verna Car bearing Registration No.TN-18 AF-2553, White Colour with Engine No.D4FBGM012903 and Chassis No.MALCU41UMGM209912. The defendant executed necessary loan documents on 18.1.2016 and hypothecated the vehicle in favour of the applicant bank.

¶17

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, but had failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 12.09.2017.

¶18

It is contended by the applicant that the applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting him to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this OA

¶20

¶21

seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and costs.

¶22

The defendant remained absent and hence was set ex-parte on 28.03.2023.

¶23

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶26

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendant?

¶27

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained ex-parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and her

¶30

¶31

assets (including the hypotheca). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶32

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a vehicle loan and the interest rates have come down considerably and in view of the fact that the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the OA this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite and future interest be awarded at reduced rates.

¶33

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶34

(a) TA No.448 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶35

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an amount of Rs.12,72,264/- with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a., simple from the defendant, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received / recovered by them during the pendency of OA and also by sale of the hypotheca and other assets of the defendant.

¶36

¶37

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.

¶38

¶39

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18^th day of March, 2024)

¶43

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

¶44

State Bank of India v. Suresh Muthu T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Suresh Muthu T

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

State Bank of India versus M/s First Frame Media and Entertainment Solutions

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. R. Nagarajan

M/s City Union Bank Limited versus Mr. K. Sakthivel

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