Allowed

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Mr. Tagore Sampath Jaikumar a

DRT15 Feb 2024TA/717/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues by housing and car loan defaulters. With amounts from previous property sales, the court ordered further joint and several recovery from defendants.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.55,91,215.48 from defendants jointly and severally after crediting prior SARFAESI sale proceeds, with interest at 9% p.a. and issuance of a recovery certificate.

Punjab & Sind Bank versus Mr. Tagore Sampath… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.717 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.302 of 2020 and thereafter transferred

¶7

to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.717 of 2022)

¶8

Punjab & Sind Bank Navalur Branch No.1/334, Ask Tower Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Navalur Chennai – 603 103 …Applicant Versus

¶9

Mr. Tagore Sampath Jaikumar A S/o. Arulmani, Block J 92, EPFO Staff Quarters, Ranganathan Garden 15^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040

¶10

Mr. Devaprabhu V S/o. T. Venugopal AC-38, 4^th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040

¶11

Mr. Anish Thomas J
S/o. Thomas, No.16/36, 3 rd Main Road
Indian Bank Colony, Ambattur
Chennai-600053 …Defendants
Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. S. Booma
Defendants : Ex-parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.55,91,215.48p with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be

¶14

¶15

recovered from defendant jointly and severally and also by sale of the schedule properties.

¶16

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

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the 1^st defendant approached the applicant seeking disbursement of a Housing Loan and a Car loan for Rs.35,00,000/and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively pursuant to which the applicant had disburse the same pursuant to the execution of necessary loan documents. By virtue of the execution of the loan documents the 1^st defendant had agreed to repay the credit facility with interest in equal monthly installments.

¶18

It is also stated the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants executed agreements of guarantee in lieu of the Housing loan and Car loan respectively.

¶19

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 1^st defendant created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule properties and over and above the mortgage, hypothecation over the vehicle was marked being the security for the repayment of the Car loan.

¶20

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA.

¶21

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even though no repayment was made despite repeated request the

¶22

¶23

applicant had on 2.8.2018 issue a demand notice as per proceedings SARFAESI requiring repayment of the amount due in the account. Subsequently a possession notice was also issued on 18.1.2019.

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶25

Even as the defendants though entered appearance, despite taking out summons through paper publication, they were set exparte on 1.6.2022.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A27 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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: -

¶28

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

¶29

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants 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

¶32

¶33

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 defendants and their/ his assets (including the scheduled property) the claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. The bank had filed a part satisfaction memo recording recovery of Rs.28,00,000/- by the sale conducted through SARFAESI Act and Set part satisfaction is recorded on 15.2.2024. Since mortgaged properties is already sold and TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 9% simple.

¶34

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

¶35

(a) TA No. 717 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶36

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.55,91,215.48 out of which an amount of Rs.39,48,502.38 from defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally and from their assets, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA, including the amount of Rs.28,00,000/- received by selling the schedule property and Rs.16,42,713.10p from defendants 1 and 3 jointly and severally and from their assets including the hypothecated vehicle, after giving credit to all amounts recovered and received in the accounts, during the pendency of the TA, all with further interest at 9% PA (simple) from the date of filing the TA till realization.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

(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.

¶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 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶42

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this 15^th day of February, 2024)

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

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

¶45

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Mr. Tagore Sampath Jaikumar a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Mr. Tagore Sampath Jaikumar a

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 v.Jayamoorthy

Uco Bank versus M/s.Ahb Isfa Traders

Canara Bank versus Mr.T.Subramani (Deceased)

Bank of Baroda versus P Gunasekaran

Punjab National Bank versus Thirupathy

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam