Allowed

State Bank of India v. Murugan Thailan Murugesan

DRT4 Mar 2024TA/940/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application for a recovery certificate under S. 19(1) RDB Act 1993. The court held the applicant's evidence un-rebutted and sufficient. A Recovery Certificate was issued for the principal amount plus interest at a reduced rate of 8% p.a. for housing loans.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 62,79,276.21 plus future and pendentelite interest at 8% p.a. (simple). Direction to realize costs.

State Bank of India versus Murugan Thailan Murugesan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 4^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.940 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.173/2021 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, RACPC, Chennai. No.16, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. … Applicant. Vs. Murugan Thailan Murugesan, 102, SM Colony, Cauvery Nagar, Kulatur - Taluk, Pudukkottai – 622 501. … Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.Parameshwari. Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶7

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for total sum of Rs.62,79,276.21 due in Housing Loan and SBI Suraksha Loan availed by the defendant.

¶8

The Applicant contends that the defendant availed Housing Loan for

¶9

Rs.56,00,000/- and SBI Suraksha Loan of Rs.1,93,640/- for purchase

¶10

¶11

of a flat. It is also stated that the said facilities were secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned property.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to appear and was set exparte on 28.04.2022.

¶15

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A9.

¶16

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶17

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶18

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶19

Both these issues are decided together.

¶20

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence, the Applicant is

¶21

¶22

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 facility is for housing loan, pendentelite and future interest is awarded at a reduced rate of 8% p.a. (simple).

¶23

In view of the above

¶24

i) TA No.940/2023 stands allowed.

¶25

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.62,79,276.21 (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousands Two Hundred Seventy Six and Twenty One only) with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant personally and also from his assets including the sale of schedule mentioned property, if the same is not sold through SARFAESI after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶26

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

¶27

iv) 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.

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 4^th day of March, 2024)

¶32

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

¶33

State Bank of India v. Murugan Thailan Murugesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Murugan Thailan Murugesan

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 Bank versus M/s.a.v.Constructions

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shahul Hameed

State Bank Of India versus K. Thanikachalam

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. K. Saravanakumar

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Mars Enterprises

Karur Vysya Bank versus Palanisamy