Allowed

State Bank of India v. S. Sonaraj

DRT3 Oct 2025OA/185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Originating Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues against S. Sonaraj. The court found the loan disbursement and default proved, reducing pendent lite interest to 8% and ordering the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.33,04,537/- plus 8% simple interest; sale of schedule properties permitted; defendant personally liable.

State Bank of India versus S. Sonaraj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 3^rd day of October, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.185 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India SBI RACPC Egmore No.16, First Floor, Whannels Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 Rep. by its Manager, Mr. S. Murugesan

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

S. Sonaraj S/o Susainathan No.19, 18^th Street, Nehru Colony Palavanthangal Chennai – 600 114

¶9

Also at No.339, New Colony, Thiruvampattu Villupuram – 604 205

¶10

Also at PFIZER Limited, 3^rd Floor Prestige Palladium Bayan No.129-140, Greams Road Chennai – 600 006

¶11

Also at Flat No.S2, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.3 Good Will Nagar, 4^th Main Road Old Perungalathur Chennai – 600 003 …Defendant

¶12

Counsel on Record / Appeared

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. E. Kumar Defendants ex-parte on 27.09.2023

¶14

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against the defendant for a sum of Rs.33,04,537/- together with interest at the rate of 8.85% per annum from 02.01.2023 till the date of realization and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

This OA relates to the Housing Loan availed by the defendant.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant bank by their application dated 01.07.2021 for grant of housing loan for purchasing a new flat. The applicant bank considering the said request vide its sanction dated 22.07.2021 sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.32,00,000/-. It is stated that the defendant executed various loan and security documents on 22.07.2021.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant deposited the title deeds of the properties more fully described in the schedule to the OA with the applicant on 22.07.2021 with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing the Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 26.07.2021 registered as Doc. No.4949 of 2021 on the file of SRO, Padappai.

¶20

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendant defaulted in repayments and did not come forward to regularize the loan account despite repeated demands and hence the loan account was classified

¶21

¶22

as NPA on 15.06.2022. It is stated that the applicant issued the demand notice on 17.06.2022 calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding dues. Despite the said notice the defendants did not come forward to clear the dues. The applicant bank is therefore filing this OA for recovery of its dues.

¶23

Summons was taken out to the defendants and the same returned with endorsement “Left”, “Door Locked”, “No such person” and “Unclaimed”. Hence the defendant was served with notice by way of substituted service by causing paper publication. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant continuously and on 27.09.2023 the defendant was called absent and placed ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 11 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-11 on 22.03.2024. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 08.09.2025 and thereafter the matter stood 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

¶29

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

¶30

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-11 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and rebutted. 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 as the interest rates have come down, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest 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.185 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶36

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.33,04,537/- together with interest at the rate 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 defendant.

¶37

(c) If sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount allowed to be recovered, 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/- (SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶43

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 3^rd day of October, 2025)

¶44

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶45

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.	01.07.2021	Loan Application submitted by the defendant	A-1
2.	22.07.2021	Letter of Arrangement between applicant bank and defendant.	A-2
3.	22.07.2021	Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public executed by defendant.	A-3
4.	22.07.2021	Deed of undertaking executed by the defendant	A-4
5.	22.07.2021	Affidavit executed by the defendant.	A-5
6.	22.07.2021	Agreement to mortgage in favour of applicant executed by defendant.	A-6
7.	22.07.2021	Confirmation Letter (EM of borrowers property) in favour of applicant bank executed by the defendant.	A-7
8.	26.07.2021	Construction Agreement registered as Doc. No.4948 of 2021, SRO, Padappai executed by PA Builders in favour of Mr. S. Sonaraj, the defendant herein	A-8
9.	26.07.2021	Sale deed registered as Doc. No.4949 of 2021,	A-9

¶46

¶47

	SRO, Padappai exeuted in defendant.	favour	of the
10.	26.07.2021 Memorandum of Deposit	of Title	deeds	A-10
	registered as Doc. No.4950	of 2021	, SRO,
	Padappai, in favour of applicant	bank.
11.	Statement of accounts along under Bankers’ Book Evidence	with cer Act.	tificates	A-11

¶48

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

¶49

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶50

All that piece and parcel of flat measuring an extent of 726 Sq. ft. bearing Flat No.S2 in 2^nd floor together with UDS land measuring an extent of 354 Sq. ft. out of land measuring an extent of 2286 Sq. ft. bearing Plot No.3, comprised in Old S.No. 374/I Part, New S. No.374/18 of Perungalathur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, and bounded on the

¶51

North By : Vacant Land South By : Plot No.2 East By : 24 Feet Road West By : Vacant Land

¶52

Situated within the Registration District of Chennai South and Sub Registration Office of Padappai.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

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

¶55

State Bank of India v. S. Sonaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. S. Sonaraj

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 Mrs. Mahalakshmi J

Union Bank of India versus K. Rani

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sridhar Traders

State Bank of India versus M.S. Shekhar Babu

Ms Ans Industries versus State Bank of India

R Rajalakshmi versus Icici Bank Limited