Allowed

State Bank of India v. v Ramesh

DRT13 Mar 2024TA/772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for issuance of a recovery certificate. The court found the bank's evidence un-rebutted and sufficient to prove the debt claim based on a housing loan agreement executed in 2017, permitting recovery of the principal, agreed interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate; recovery of Rs. 78,55,452/- with future interest; permission to sell mortgaged properties; defendant personally liable if proceeds are insufficient.

State Bank of India versus v Ramesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 13^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.772 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.118/2022-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India, RACPC – Chennai, Door No: D128, 3^rd and 4^th floors, D Block, Plot No. 676, 1^st Main road, Near Chintamani Circle,Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102 …Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

V. Ramesh S/o Velsamy ( Late) Flat No. F4, First Floor Plot Nos. 45A and 45B, New Door No. 45, Old Door No: 45, Thiru Nagar, 4^th street Vadapalani, Chennai – 600026. ...Defendant Counsel for Applicant : M/s.A. Kumar Defendants : Exparte ……

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.78,55,452/-due as on 24.12.2021

¶12

¶13

along with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties along with costs.

¶14

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

¶15

The Applicant Bank contends thata Housing Loan credit facility to the tune of Rs.57,60,000/- was availed by the defendant. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents on 5.9.2017by the defendant, obliging to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

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

¶18

Summons was taken out and as defendant failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 31.01.2023.

¶19

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A10.

¶20

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are decided together.

¶25

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.

¶26

In view of the above:

¶27

i. TA. No: 772of 2022 stands allowed.

¶28

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.78,55,452/- (Rupees seventy eightlakhs fifty five thousand four hundred and fifty two Only/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 8.65 % p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendantand also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan accounts of the defendant.

¶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

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 13^th day of March, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

State Bank of India v. v Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. v Ramesh

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 versus Rajaraman

M/s. Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. C. Rajasekaran

M/s. Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mohn Singh

Punjab National Bank versus P. Saravanan

Punjab National Bank versus Mrs. D. Bhuvaneswary

Canara Bank versus M/s Sri Venkateswara Timber and Saw Mill