Allowed

State Bank of India v. John Vettuparkil

DRT25 Jun 2025OA/1096/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 38,14,710/- and future interest. The court held the defendants liable to pay the outstanding amount secured by the mortgage on their property, directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Ordered defendants to pay Rs. 38,14,710/- plus future interest at 7.55% p.a. Issuance of Recovery Certificate; bank entitled to sell mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus John Vettuparkil — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 23.02.2022 Registered on .. 09.12.2022 Decided on .. 25.06.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 03--04--02

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1096/2022.

¶3

State Bank of India,

¶4

A Corportion constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Local Head Office at Synergy State Bank Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai and one of its branch office at – Sawantwadi, Nevagi Complex, Near Moti Talav, Taluka Sawantwadi, District Sindhudurg 416 510.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. John Lukose Vettuparkil, Age Adult, Occ. Business, Add : House No. 289, Thorle Bharad, Sateli Bhedshi, Taluka Dodamarg, District Sindhudurg 416 512.

¶8

2 Mrs. Remya Ramchandran Ramchandran, Age Adult, Occ. Business,

¶9

Add : House No. 289, Thorle Bharad, Sateli Bhedshi, Taluka Dodamarg, District Sindhudurg 416 512.

¶10

… Defendants

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 1096/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶12

:- Appearances For Applicant For Defendants

¶13

Advocate Satyen Jagtap. Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.38,14,710 /-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 25^th June, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.38,14,710/- together with future interest @7.55% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶19

As per the application dated 05.08.2017 of defendant Nos.1 and 2 for grant of Housing Loan, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Housing loan as Medium Term Loan I facility of Rs.30,00,000/- and Term Loan facility of Rs.1,54,000/to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 vide Arrangement Letter dated 11.09.2017.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants had executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of equitable mortgage dated 11.09.2017 in respect of property situated on Plot No.3, Survey No. 112 Hissa No.1A-3, At Kolgaon, Bhomwadi, Kasarewadi, Taluka Sawantwadi, District Sindhudurg

¶21

Sanap ( OA No. 1096/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶22

along with the bungalow to be constructed thereon, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶23

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 30.12.2018, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 11.07.2020, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶24

Hence, this application is filed.

¶25

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 01.05.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶26

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Vikas Suresh Thakur, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-12 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Sanap ( OA No. 1096/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶28

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶29

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @7.55% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @7.55% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶31

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

A} Original Application No. 1096/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶34

B} Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.38,14,710/(Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred Ten only) along with future interest @7.55% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 23.02.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶35

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the

¶36

Sanap ( OA No. 1096/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶37

valid and subsisting mortgage of property situated on Plot No.3, Survey No. 112 Hissa No.1A-3, At Kolgaon, Bhomwadi, Kasarewadi, Taluka Sawantwadi, District Sindhudurg along with the bungalow to be constructed thereon, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.5 of the Original Application.

¶38

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶39

E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶40

F} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶41

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 25.06.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶42

Sanap ( OA No. 1096/2022 ) 5 of 5

State Bank of India v. John Vettuparkil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. John Vettuparkil

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Gajanan

Central Bank of India versus Nagesh Kamble

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Rajan Jagannathan Mari

Bank of Maharashtra versus Samadhan

Bank of India versus Kashinath Sangale

Bank of Baroda versus Rajesab Agasimani