Allowed

State Bank of India v. S. Aravind Kumar

DRT22 Feb 2024TA/733/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues under the RDB Act. Unrebutted evidence proved the time award claim. A recovery certificate was issued permitting sale of mortgaged properties and declaring defendants personally liable for shortfall.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 44,04,435.45 with future interest at 9.15% p.a.; authority to sell mortgaged properties; personal liability of defendants for balance due; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus S. Aravind Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 22^nd day ofFebruary, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.733of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.283/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB) 32, II Floor, Red Cross Buildings, Chennai – 600 008

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

S. Aravind Kumar S/o. Sivagnanam 156, SI, Second Floor, Blue Bells Apartment, Sri Perumal Nagar, Perumbakkam, Opp to Vasantha Mahal, Chennai – 600 100

¶9

J.Sumathy W/o S. Aravind Kumar, 156, SI, Second Floor, Blue Bells Apartment, Sri Perumal Nagar, Perumbakkam, Opp to Vasantha Mahal, Chennai – 600 100 …Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.R.Sumathy Defendant : 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 a total sum of Rs.44,04,435.45Punder the HousingLoan

¶13

¶14

A/calong with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶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 thata Housing Loan credit facility of Rs.37,60,000/- was availed by the defendants. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgageof schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by the defendants on 25.07.2015, obliging 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 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.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 27.08.2019.

¶20

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A14.

¶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

1. 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.

¶27

In view of the above:

¶28

i. TA. No: 733of 2022

¶29

ii. stands allowed.

¶30

iii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.44,04,435.45P(Rupees Forty Four Lakhs FourThousand FourHundred Thirty Five and Forty Five Paisa/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 9.15% p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendantsand also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶31

¶32

iv. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due.

¶33

v. 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.

¶34

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

¶35

vii. 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.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 22^nd day ofFebruary, 2024)

¶39

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

¶40

State Bank of India v. S. Aravind Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. S. Aravind Kumar

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

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Navashakti Auto Fuels

The Federal Bank Limited versus M/s M.K.R. Traders Private Limited

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr.Manimaran

Canara Bank versus M/s Selakshan Contractors

State Bank of India, versus Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited

Syed Faiyaz S a versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited