Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. S. Vasanth

DRT13 Nov 2025OA/183/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a money recovery case, the DRT considered an application by a bank for a Recovery Certificate against a defaulting borrower of a housing loan. The court found the bank's evidence unchallenged and sufficient to prove the debt, granting the recovery of the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.47,70,784/- plus interest at 8% p.a. (simple) from filing date; permission to realize costs; defendant personally liable if sale proceeds are insufficient.

Indian Overseas Bank versus S. Vasanth — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 13^th day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA No.183 of 2023

¶5

Indian Overseas Bank MMDA Nagar Branch B-5 Water Tank Road MMDA Nagar, Arumbakkam Chennai – 600106 Represented by its Chief Manager …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

S. Vasanth S/o M. Subramaniyam No.29A, 2^nd Cross Street, Thirumoorthy Nagar Extension Hasthinapuram, Chennai – 600 064

¶8

Flat No. S-1, Second Floor Plot No.60, Ramachandra Nagar Gerugambakkam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram District Chennai – 600 122 ... Defendant

¶9

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶10

Counsel for Applicant Bank : Mr. P.V. Sanjeev Defendant ex-parte on 08.11.2023

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant

¶14

¶15

seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,70,784/- together with interest at the rate of 9.40% per annum with monthly rests from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for schedule mentioned property.

¶16

The subject matter of the case is the Housing Loan availed by the defendant from the Applicant Bank.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of credit facility of Rs.40,00,000/- for purchase of the property more fully described in the schedule to the OA. Considering the said request the applicant vide its sanction dated 29.1.2020 sanctioned Subhagruha Housing Loan of Rs.40,00,000/- to the defendant.

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant deposited the title deeds of the property with the applicant bank with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 04.02.2020 registered as Doc. No.860/2020, SRO, Pammal.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that having availed the loan the defendant defaulted in repayment and failed to regularize the loan account despite repeated request and hence the loan account was classified as NPA. As no payment was forthcoming the applicant issued a demand notice dated

¶20

¶21

08.02.2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act followed by Possession Notice dated 10.06.2022 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Despite the said notice the defendants did not come forward to clear the dues. Hence the applicant is filing this OA for recovery of its dues.

¶22

Summons was taken out to the defendant was served. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant continuously and on 08.11.2023, the defendant was called absent and placed ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 18 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-18 on 25.04.2024. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 19.09.2025 and thereafter the matter stood

¶23

till this date for passing final orders.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶25

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendant?

¶26

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶27

These issues are considered together.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶29

¶30

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-18 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendant. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendant. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶31

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶32

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is a Housing Loan and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

¶33

¶34

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, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶35

(a) OA No.183 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶36

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.47,70,784/- together with interest at the date of 8% (Simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendant after deducting all the amounts received / realized by them during the pendency of OA and also by selling the schedule mentioned properties and other assets of the defendants.

¶37

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due as ordered above.

¶38

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶42

SD/-

¶43

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶44

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 13^th day of November, 2025)

¶45

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶46

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.		Power of Attorney	A-1
2.	21.10.2019	Application by defendant for grant of credit facility.	A-2
3.	29.01.2020	Credit Sanction Advice by the applicant	A-3
4.	29.01.2020	Demand Promissory Note by defendant	A-4
5.	29.01.2020	Demand Promissory Note Letter	A-5
6.	29.01.2020	Letter of undertaking for repayment in installment.	A-6
7.	29.01.2020	Undertaking letter from the borrower after introduction of interest linked with RLLR	A-7
8.	29.01.2020	Term Loan agreement for Direct Finance Scheme	A-8
9.	04.02.2020	Equitable mortgage created by defendant	A-9
10.	06.02.2020	Letter confirming creation of equitable mortgage.	A-10
11.	08.02.2022	Demand Notice along with postal receipts	A-11
12.		Returned cover	A-12
13.		Acknowledgement card	A-13

¶47

¶48

14.	Possession Notice with postal receipts	A-14
15.	Possession Notice – Returned cover	A-15
16.	Possession Notice – Paper publication – English	A-16
17.	Possession Notice – Paper Publication – Tamil	A-17
18.	Statement of Accounts along with certificates	A-18
	under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act

¶49

Sd/- (SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶50

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶51

SCHEDULE – ‘A’

¶52

All that piece and parcel of vacant house site bearing Plot No.60 measuring an extent of 2578 Sq. ft. in the approved layout viz., “Ramachandra Nagar” by CMDA in P.P.D./L.O No.63/2000 vide letter No.L1/30295 dated 6.9.2000 comprised in Old Survey No.315/2, New Sub-division Survey No.315/4, as per New Patta No.674 in No.57, Gerugambakkam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, and bounded on the:

¶53

North by : Plot No.65 South by : Plot No.59 and 16 feet road East by : Plot No.61 and West by : Vacant land now 30 feet Road

¶54

Measuring Northern side-41 feet, Southern side-41 feet plus 8 feet Splay Eastern side-50 feeet plus 8 feet Splay and Western side-58 feet and situated within the sub-registration district of Pammal and Registration District of Chennai South.

¶55

¶56

SCHEDULE – B

¶57

439 Sq. ft. undivided share of land morefully described in the Schedule-A herein above along with Flat bearing S-1 in the Second Floor having built up area of 870 ft. together with the usage of right of reserved earmarked covered car parking.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶60

Indian Overseas Bank v. S. Vasanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. S. Vasanth

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

Challani Ranka Jewellery versus Indian Overseas Bank

E Mahadevan versus Bank of Baroda

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Thangaiyan Kanmani

Canara Bank, Hosur Sme Branch versus M/s Sri Vigneshwara Industries

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s. Real Tech Power Controls

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Sivakumar. E