Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. S. Gopinath

DRT22 Aug 2025TA/132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate. It held that the bank proved the loan liability and ordered the debtor to repay the principal, interest at 8%, and costs, liable for the difference if sale proceeds were insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Issue of recovery certificate and permission to realize Rs.36,14,491 plus 8% interest and costs from defendant.

State Bank of India versus S. Gopinath — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of August, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.132 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I, Chennai as OA No.260 of 2022 and thereafter transferred tothis Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.132 of 2022)

¶6

State Bank of India RACP Centre Situated at Block No.97, AF Block 4^th Avenue, Shanthi Colony Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 Rep. by its Chief Manager & Authorised Officer …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

S. Gopinath S/o Selvaraj No.8, Mettu Street, Kannigapuram Avadi, Chennai - 600054

¶9

…Defendant

¶10

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶11

Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s Nattarajan Gopinath Defendant ex-parte on 28.03.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.36,14,491/- with further interest at the rate of 10.35% per annum with monthly rests from 01.12.2021 till the date of realisation along with costs of

¶14

the application and for sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶15

¶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 on 25.10.2017 for grant of Housing Term Loan and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs.33.00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 29.11.2017. The said loan is secured by mortgage of immovable property belonging to the defendant in favour of the applicant. It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant had executed various loan documents on 29.11.2017.

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant by application dated 29.11.2017 approached the applicant bank for grant of additional loan (Suraksha Loan) for payment of insurance premium. The applicant considering the said request sanctioned a sum of Rs.56,270/-. The defendant executed additional loan documents on 29.11.2017.

¶19

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendant deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned property with the applicant bank on 29.11.2017 with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 21.12.2017 registered as Doc. No.12728/2017 on the file of SRO, Chengalpattu.

¶20

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendants defaulted in repayment and hence the loan account was classified as NPA on 28.01.2020 and the loan account now stands transferred from the applicant bank’s Avadi Road Branch, Kilpauk, Chennai to RACP Centre situated at Shanti Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai in terms of the internal policy.

¶22

It is the further case of the applicant that as the defendant did not come forward to clear the dues, the applicant sent a demand notice to the defendant. The defendant despite receipt of the same did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues, hence the present OA is filed for recovery of its dues.

¶23

Summons was taken out to the defendant and the same was returned unserved and hence the defendant was served with notice by wayof substituted service by causing paper publication. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant continuously and on 28.03.2023 the defendant was called absent and placed ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 15 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-15 on 27.06.2024. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 07.08.2025 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶24

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

These issues are considered together.

¶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-15 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

¶31

¶32

due from the defendant. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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: -

¶36

(a) TA No.132 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶37

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.36,14,491/with further interest @8% per annum (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 property and other assets of the defendant.

¶38

¶39

(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.

¶40

(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.

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 22^nd day of August, 2025)

¶46

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶47

S.	Date	Description of documents	Exhibit
No.			No.
1.	25.10.2017	Application form submitted by defendant	A-1
2.	29.11.2017	Sanction Letter issued by the applicant bank.	A-2
3.	29.11.2017	Arrangement letter by defendant	A-3

¶48

¶49

4.	29.11.2017	Memorandum of Loan – Agreement for Home Loan granted to public	A-4
5.	29.11.2017	Agreement to Mortgage	A-5
6.	29.11.2017	Deed of Undertaking	A-6
7.	29.11.2017	Operation Letter	A-7
8.	29.11.2017	Indemnity Affidavit	A-8
9.	29.11.2017	Request for additional loan for payment of life insurance premium.	A-9
10.	29.11.2017	SBI Suraksha Loan Approval	A-10
11.	29.11.2017	Agreement for additional loan granted for additional loan for payment of life insurance premium	A-11
12.	06.09.2017	Construction Agreement - Doc. No.11492/2017 on the file of SRO, Chengelpet	A-12
13.	24.11.2017	Deed of absolute sale – Doc. No.11493/2017 on the file of SRO, Chengelpet	A-13
14.	21.12.2017	Memorandum relating to deposit of title deeds – Doc. No.12728/2017, SRO, Chengelpet	A-14
15.	30.11.2021	Statement of Accounts	A-15

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

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

¶52

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

¶53

SCHEDULE ‘A’

¶54

All the piece and parcel of property being Land measuring an extent of 1,694 Sq. ft. (including Land Area of 1368 Sq. ft. and Passage UDS area of 326

¶55

¶56

Sq. ft.) bearing Plot No.3A, Elliamman Koil Street, Comprised in Survey No.27/2, Old Patta No.21, Joint Patta No.146 and Patta No.151, as per the Patta New Survey No.27/2D, situated at No.53, Konathi Village, Chenglepet Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

¶57

Bounded on the:

¶58

North By : Survey No.27/3 South By : Survey No.27/1 East By : Plot No.3B belonging to Mr. Kamararaj West By : Plot belonging to Mr. N. Munisamy And Measuring East to West on the Northern Side : 32.3 Feet East to West on the Southern Side : 33.3 Feet North to South on the Eastern Side : 51.4 Feet North to South on the Western Side : 51.4 Feet

¶59

SCHEDULE – II

¶60

(CONVEYED PROPERTY)

¶61

363 Sq. Feet Undivided share of Land out of 1694 Sq. Feet (i.e.) 289 Sq.

¶62

Feet Undivided Share of Land out of 1368 Sq. Feet and 74 Sq. Feet Undivided share of land out of Passage UDS 326 Sq. Feet more particularly described in the Schedule ‘A’ above mentioned property.

¶63

¶64

SCHEDULE – II

¶65

(DESCRIPTION OF FLAT)

¶66

A Three bedroom flat bearing No.F1, having super built up area of 906 Sq.

¶67

Feet (Including Common Area) situated in the First Floor, Within the SRO of Chengalpattu Joint and Registration of Chengalpattu.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

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

¶70

State Bank of India v. S. Gopinath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. S. Gopinath

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

Kamalakkan versus Union Bank of India

M/s Hdfc Bank Limited versus Fj Skid Packs

M/s Hdfc Bank Limited versus S.B. Ganesh Kumar

State Bank of India versus P. Santhosh Kumar

State Bank of India versus R. Lokeshwaran

State Bank of India versus D. Manikandan