Allowed

State Bank of India v. Vijay

DRT8 Feb 2024TA/617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 19(1) RDB Act, 1993, the Debt Recovery Tribunal awarded a Transfer of Asset order confirming the bank's claim of approx. Rs. 50 lakhs due from two credit facilities. The bank's evidence remained unrebutted, leading to the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Transfer of Asset Order and Recovery Certificate for Rs. 50,06,972/ with future interest.

State Bank of India versus Vijay — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 8^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.617 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.112/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

State Bank of India Retail Assets Centralized Processing Centre, No. 16, Whannels Road, Chennai – 600 008

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. A. Vijay, S/o Mr. Adikesavalu No. 19, 1^st Street, Krishnaveni Ammal Nagar, Ayyapanthangal, Chennai – 600 056

¶9

Mrs. R. Rekha, W/o A. Vijay No. 19, 1^st Street, Krishnaveni Ammal Nagar, Ayyapanthangal, Chennai – 600 056 ...Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s. M. Suresh Defendants : Exparte ……

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.50,06,972/- due in the two credit facilitiesi.e. Rs.

¶13

¶14

48,95,632/- due under the Housing Loan and Rs. 1,11,340/- due under SBI Suraksha Loan with future interest @ 9% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till the date of realization and for sale of schedule mentioned properties along with costs.

¶15

The Applicant Bank contends thatcredit facilities of Rs.37,00,000/and Rs.2,09,125/- respectively were availed by the defendants. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgage of schedule properties.

¶16

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

¶17

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 06.09.2023.

¶18

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked ExbsA1 to A12.

¶19

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶20

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

¶21

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶22

¶23

Both these issues are decided together.

¶24

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 to be found entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶25

In view of the above:

¶26

i. TA. No: 617of 2023 stands allowed.

¶27

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.50,06,972/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Two Only/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 9%p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶28

iii. It is made clear that the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due in the Loan accounts.

¶29

iv. The schedule mentioned properties to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the

¶30

¶31

defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶32

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

¶33

vi. 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.

¶34

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 (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶35

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 8^th day of February, 2024)

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(T. RAJESH)

¶38

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶39

State Bank of India v. Vijay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Vijay

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Radhakrishnan

Indian Overseas Bank versus Suns Food Company

Indian Bank versus M/s.Thirumalai Stores

Bank of Baroda versus S.Anjalatchi

Union Bank of India versus Mr. N. Balu

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus Mr. Senapathi Sivashanmuga Devar