Allowed

Bank of India v. Mr. B. Aldrin John

DRT18 Mar 2024TA/733/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's interim application for recovery of a home loan due to defendant default. The court reduced interest from compound to simple 8% per annum and ordered realization from assets and personally from guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.40,03,365/- with future simple interest @ 8% p.a.; permitted sale of properties and personal recovery; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of India versus Mr. B. Aldrin John — Arbitration | 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.733 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.90 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.733 of 2023)

¶7

Bank of India Anna Nagar Branch W-124, New No.41, III Avenue Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 Represented by its Constituted Attorney …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. B. Aldrin John S/o Mr. A. Bhaskaran Block No.56, A-22 LIC Jeevan Bhimar Nagar Anna Nagar West Extension

¶10

Chennai – 600 101

¶11

Mrs. Jayachitra. A W/o Mr. Aldrin John. B Block No.56, A-22 LIC Jeevan Bhimar Nagar Anna Nagar West Extension Chennai – 600 101

¶12

Mr. Sathish Kumar. M S/o Mr. Manickam

¶13

No.2, Avvaiyar Street Nilamangai Ngar, Adambakkam

¶14

Chennai – 600 088 …Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. M.P. Venkateswaran Defendants : Ex- parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of

¶18

Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of

¶19

¶20

Rs.40,03,365/- together with interest at the rate of 8.8% 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 schedule mentioned properties.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(a) The defendants 1 and 2 approached the applicant bank during May 2014 for grant of home loan for purchase of the flat more fully described in the Schedule to the TA and the third defendant offered to stand as guarantor for the said loan transaction. The applicant considering the said request vide its sanction dated 31.05.2014 sanctioned home loan of Rs.30,00,000/-. The defendants 1 and 2 executed the loan documents on 25.06.2014. The 3^rd defendant executed deed of guarantee on 25.06.2014 thereby guaranteeing due repayment of the credit facility availed by the defendants 1 and 2.

¶24

(b) The defendants 1 and 2 deposited the title deeds of the property more fully described in Schedule ‘B’ to the OA with the applicant and created equitable mortgage over the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 3.8.2015 registered as Doc. No.5118 of 2015 on the file of SRO, Tambaram.

¶25

¶26

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 16.12.2017.

¶27

It is contended by the applicant that 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 or to pay back the amount and hence the applicant issued the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 7.10.2017 followed by Possession Notice on 9.10.2018. It is stated that the defendants acknowledged the loan and liability by executing acknowledgement of debt and securities on 29.1.2016 and 24.1.2019.

¶28

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

¶29

The defendants continuously remained absent and hence were called absent and hence were set ex-parte on 05.07.2023.

¶30

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-20 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶34

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

¶35

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

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

¶38

In view of the fact that the subject loan is an housing loan and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing and further as the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶39

¶40

13, 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: -

¶41

(a) TA No.733 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶42

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.40,03,365/with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a., simple from the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of TA, and also by selling the schedule properties and other assets of the defendants.

¶43

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due under the Loan Accounts.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Bank of India v. Mr. B. Aldrin John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mr. B. Aldrin John

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