Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mrs. B. Parasakthi

DRT24 Oct 2025TA/140/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under the RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court found the bank proved the loan liability via unchallenged evidence but granted interest only at a reduced contractual rate of 10% simple, rejecting penal interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.24,38,355.50 plus 10% simple interest from filing date; proceedings costs awarded to applicant.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mrs. B. Parasakthi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 24^th day of October, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.140 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.162 of 2022 and thereafter Transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.140 of 2022)

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager Vadalur Branch, Opp. To EB Office Cuddalore Road, Seukuppam Village Vadalur, Cuddalore District – 607 303

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs. B. Parasakthi W/o Mr. Bala Parameshwaran No.4/2, Adhi Karmans and Tailor New Railway Gate, Panrutti Main Road Vadalur, Kurinjipadi Taluk Cuddalore District

¶10

Also at

¶11

No.25C, Periya Colony Abatharanapuram Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District Vadalur – 607 303

¶12

Mr. Bala Parameshwaran S/o Mr. A. Balakrishnan No.4/2, Adhi Karmans and Tailor New Railway Gate, Panrutti Main Road Vadalur, Kurinjipadi Taluk Cuddalore District

¶13

Also at

¶14

No.25C, Periya Colony Abatharanapuram Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶15

Vadalur – 607 303 ... Defendants

¶16

¶17

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶18

Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s Ananda Gomathy & R. Roshan Defendants ex-parte on 26.05.2023

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,38,355.50p/- together with interest at the rate of 13.25% per annum with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for schedule mentioned property.

¶21

The subject matter of the case is the Small Business loan availed by the defendants from the Applicant Bank.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of loan for the purpose of their business and applicant considering the said request sanctioned Small business loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs to the defendants vide sanction dated 08.07.2020. It is stated that the defendant executed loan documents on 08.07.2020.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that the 1^st defendant deposited the title

¶24

deeds of the property with the applicant on 24.06.2020 and confirmed the

¶25

¶26

same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 24.06.2020 registered as Doc. No.2439/2010, SRO, Vadalur.

¶27

It is the case of the applicant that having availed the loan the defendants defaulted in repayment and failed to regularize the loan account despite repeated request and hence the loan account was classified as NPA on 01.07.2013. As no payment was forthcoming the applicant issued a demand notice dated 25.08.2015 calling upon the defendants to pay the outstanding dues. 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.

¶28

Summons was taken out to the defendants returned unserved with endorsement “left without intimation” and hence applicant was directed take out fresh service. The fresh notice was served on the defendants. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendants on 26.05.2023, the defendants were called absent and placed ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 8 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-8 on 02.04.2024, however Exhibits A-6 was marked subject to proof. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 15.09.2025 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶29

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

These issues are considered together.

¶34

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

¶35

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-8 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 defendants. 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 defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is a Small Business 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 and prayer for award of penal interest is rejected.

¶39

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: -

¶40

(a) TA No.140 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶41

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.24,38,355.50p together with interest at the date of 10% (Simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendants jointly and severally after deducting all the amounts received / realized by them during the pendency of OA and also by selling the schedule mentioned property and other assets of the defendants.

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

(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.

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

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

¶49

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 24^th day of October, 2025)

¶50

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶51

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.	08.07.2010	Credit Sanction Advice	A-1
2.	08.07.2010	Demand Promissory Note for Rs.9.50 lakhs	A-2
3.	08.07.2010	Letter agreeing to pay in 84 equated half yearly	A-3
		instalments of Rs.17,500/- w.e.f. 1.8.2010

¶52

¶53

4.	08.07.2010	Term Loan agreement	A-4
5.	30.06.2010	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds – Doc.	A-5
		No.2439/2010
6.	25.08.2015	Demand Notice	A-6
7.	21.05.2010	Sale deed – Doc. No.1929/2010	A-7
8.		Statement of Accounts	A-8

¶54

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

¶55

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶56

All that piece and parcel of the land at Cuddalore Registration District, Vadalur, Sub Registration Distrct, Cuddalore District, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Abatharanapuram Village comprised in New R.S, No.161/5, Old R.S. No.241/22, Door No.25C, Periya Colony, Ambethkar Nagar of Abatharanapuram Village of Vadalur Town Limit of Kurinjipadi Taluk Cuddalore District attached to Vadalur Sub Registration Distrct and Cuddalore Registration District,

¶57

Boundaries

¶58

North by	:	Plot Mr. Govindharasu
South by	:	Plot of Mr. Kuppusamy and 3 feet pathway
East by	:	Mr. Ramar’s Land
West by	:	Road

¶59

Admeasuring total extent of the site of 3488 sft. Land with 485 sft. Plinth area

¶60

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

¶61

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mrs. B. Parasakthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mrs. B. Parasakthi

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

Canara Bank versus M/s Kanimozhi Chicken Center

Indian Bank versus Mr. S. Jaganathan

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mrs. K. Subhashini

State Bank of India versus Lekkala Venkata Subba Reddy

City Union Bank Limited versus Dr S Saravanan

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Thangaiyan Kanmani