Allowed

State Bank of India v. Biragalathan

DRT27 Nov 2025TA/1321/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's claim for recovery of home loan dues. The bank had realized a portion of the debt through asset sale, and the order directed recovery of the balance along with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,49,52,684/- plus interest and costs; credit given for Rs. 1.26 crores realized by sale; liberty to sell personal assets for balance.

State Bank of India versus Biragalathan — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1321 of 2023

¶2

27.11.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 1321 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 516/2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No 1321 of 2023)

¶9

State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, MRC Nagar, No.4, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 Rep. by its Chief Manager ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Mr. A. Biragalathan, S/o Mr. Arumugam, Residing at, RC Cashlin No.31-B, Satyavaani Muthu Street, 25^th Street, G.K.M. Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082 …..Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. M. Suresh Defendant was set ex-parte on 28.06.2022

¶14

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶15

This Original Application is filed on 25.09.2020 by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 1,49,52,684/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Four Only) due in respect of Home

¶16

T.A. No. 1321 of 2023

¶17

¶18

27.11.2025

¶19

Loan Facility (Account No.38098996684) repayable together with further interest @ 8.40% per annum with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization in full and for costs of this application.

¶20

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.516 of 2020, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.516 of 2020 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1321 of 2023.

¶21

Brief Facts of the case:

¶22

The Applicant submits that the application is filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and the subject recovery claim falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶23

It is the case of the Applicant bank that defendant had approached applicant bank seeking financial assistance for purchase of schedule mentioned property. Pursuant to the request of the defendant, applicant bank had sanctioned the “Housing Loan” facility to the tune of Rs.1,35,75,000/- to the defendant subject to the terms and conditions as envisaged under the Arrangement Letter dated 30.11.2018 and Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public herein dated 30.11.2018. The defendant had executed a confirmation letter dated 22.09.2019.

¶24

The Applicant bank submits that the defendant herein has executed the following loan documents thereby acknowledging the said loan amount

¶25

T.A. No. 1321 of 2023

¶26

¶27

27.11.2025

¶28

availed from the applicant bank.

¶29

a) Sanction Letter dated 30.11.2018

¶30

b) Arrangement Letter dated 30.11.2018

¶31

c) Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to Public dated 30.11.2018

¶32

d) Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 21.09.2019

¶33

e) Confirmation Letter dated 22.09.2019

¶34

The applicant bank submits that the defendant had undertaken to repay the loan amount together with interest as per the terms and conditions of the Arrangement Letter dated 30.11.2018 without committing any default.

¶35

It is submitted by the applicant bank that subsequent to the disbursement of the aforesaid “Housing Loan” the defendant was not operating the account as per the terms and conditions. The applicant bank have been repeatedly making representations to the defendant to regularize the Housing Loan account, but the defendant did not take any concrete steps to regularize the loan account or to repay the loan amounts. The defendant has not shown significant transactions to the utmost satisfaction of the applicant bank. Since the defendant had failed to service the interest and principal due under the Housing Loan account, it was classified as NonPerforming Asset (NPA) in the books of the applicant bank on 29.02.2020 in accordance with RBI guidelines. The applicant bank through its Authorised Officer had issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act

¶36

T.A. No. 1321 of 2023

¶37

27.11.2025

¶38

¶39

dated 06.03.2020, despite which the defendant did not come forward to repay the dues. Hence, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendants.

¶40

After the filing of the OA, summons was sent to the sole defendant through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which returned with the postal endorsement as “Left”. Applicant bank had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 28.06.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, defendant was placed ex-parte on 28.06.2022.

¶41

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the records.

¶42

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. Ranjeeth Kumar, City Case Officer representing the Applicant Bank, has filed his Affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex A-1 to A-9 . As the defendant remained ex-parte, the OA claim remains unchallenged. There is no contra evidence available on record to repudiate the claim of the Applicant Bank.

¶43

During the pendency of OA, Applicant Bank had reported part satisfaction of OA claim in a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- by way of sale of Schedule immovable property under SARFAESI Act on 25.09.2023. Accordingly, part satisfaction of sum of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- was duly recorded vide order dated 08.09.2025.

¶44

T.A. No. 1321 of 2023

¶45

27.11.2025

¶46

¶47

With regard to the amount advanced, the interest applied, the conduct and operations in the account and the default committed, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant bank is entitled for a final order on the following terms:

¶48

: O R D E R :

¶49

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶50

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendant a sum of 1,49,52,684/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Four Only) due in respect of Home Loan Facility (Account No.38098996684) repayable together with further interest @ 8.40% per annum with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization in full along with costs.

¶51

(b) The sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- realized by applicant bank by towards part satisfaction of the OA claim is directed to be given credit to the borrower’s loan account as on the date of realization.

¶52

(c) If the sale proceeds of the immovable property is not sufficient to satisfy the dues as ordered above, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the personal assets of the Defendant (both movable and immovable) to recover the balance dues as required under law for which the Defendant to disclose to the Tribunal particulars of other properties or assets owned by the Defendant.

¶53

(d) The applicant bank shall file the latest memo of calculation of OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by the defendants

¶54

T.A. No. 1321 of 2023

¶55

27.11.2025

¶56

¶57

duly considering the amounts, if any, paid by the defendants and/or amount realized by sale of assets etc., during the intervening period after the filing of the OA, enabling the Registry to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by defendants to the applicant bank.

¶58

(e) The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of receipt this final order.

¶59

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

¶60

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶61

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶62

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 27^th day of November, 2025)

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶65

AW-1: Sh. Ranjeeth Kumar, City Case Officer representing the Applicant Bank.

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	Sanction Letter dated 30.11.2018.	A-1
2.	Arrangement Letter dated 30.11.2018.	A-2
3.	Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loa	A-3

¶68

T.A. No. 1321 of 2023

¶69

27.11.2025

¶70

¶71

	granted to public dated 30.11.2018.
4.	Memorandum of Deposit dated 21.09.2019.	A-4
5.	Confirmation Letter dated 22.09.2019.	A-5
6.	Agreement to construct dated 27.01.2017.	A-6
7.	Sale Deed executed by M/s Rajarathina Constructions (p) Ltd in favour of A. Buragakatha (Doc. No.346/2017) dated 06.02.2017.	A-7
8.	Section 13(2) Notice dated 06.03.2020.	A-8
9.	Statement of Account dated 30.11.2018 t 17.09.2020.	A-9

¶72

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil-

¶73

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil –

¶74

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

State Bank of India v. Biragalathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Biragalathan

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 Overseas Bank versus Premalatha

State Bank of India versus T K Sunil Mithran and Ors.

M Balamurugan versus Union Bank of India

Mr S Dhanraj S Varadarajan Srinivasan Punithavel versus Yes Bank

Canara Bank versus M s J S Traders and two others

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Sree Laxmi