Allowed

State Bank of India v. Suresh Babu

DRT17 Feb 2025TA/1471/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a home loan default amounting to Rs. 21 lakhs. The court concluded that the claim was unchallenged as the defendant remained ex-parte and directed the issue of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,94,612.06 plus interest; direction to issue recovery certificate; liberty to sell additional assets for balance dues.

State Bank of India versus Suresh Babu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1471/2023 (E)

¶2

17.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 1471 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 797/2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No 1471 of 2023)

¶9

State Bank of India, ARMB Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager, Having its office at No. 44, I Floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

S. Sureshbabu, S/o. Sundaresan, No. 2/156, Kamala Street, Ariyapadi Post, Arni Taluk, Vellore – 632 314. …..Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Kishore Kumar

¶14

Defendant was set ex-parte on 27.07.2021

¶15

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶16

This original application is filed on 29.08.2019 by the applicant bank under Section 19 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.21,94,612.06p (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety

¶17

Four Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve only) due in respect of Housing Loan facility together with further interest @ 9.35% per annum with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization in full, for sale of schedule mentioned

¶18

T.A. No. 1471/2023 (E)

¶19

¶20

17.02.2025

¶21

immovable property and for costs of this application.

¶22

Originally, this application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.797/2019, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.797/2019 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1471/2023.

¶23

Brief Facts of the case:

¶24

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 Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶25

The case of the applicant bank is that the Defendant had approached the applicant bank seeking financial assistance for purchase of the immovable property morefully detailed in Schedule to OA and submitted application on 24.10.2013.

¶26

It is submitted that upon request of defendants, the applicant bank had sanctioned the Home Loan of Rs.22,40,000/- on 06.11.2013, which is repayable in equated monthly installments of Rs.22,127/- every month together with interest at the rate of 3% p.a. above the base rate, which was 9.8% p.a. at the time of sanction (the then current effect rate being 10.1% p.a.) with monthly rests.

¶27

It is submitted by applicant bank that defendant had availed the Home Loan of Rs.22,40,000/- and acknowledged the Letter of Arrangement dated 06.11.2023 issued by the applicant bank. The defendant had also subsequently availed

¶28

T.A. No. 1471/2023 (E)

¶29

¶30

17.02.2025

¶31

insurance for the above loan. Accordingly, the applicant bank had sanctioned a sum of Rs.62,295/- towards payment of insurance and defendant had executed necessary declaration for the same to SBI Life Insurance as additional loan vide Clause 10 and 11 of the Letter of Arrangement.

¶32

It is the case of applicant bank that defendant had created equitable mortgage and deposited the title deeds of the property, morefully detailed in OA schedule and executed Memorandum of deposit of Title deeds dated 14.11.2013, registered as Document No.15629 of 2013 before SRO, Guduvanchery in favour of applicant bank. The defendant had deposited the following documents at the time of creation of mortgage in favour of applicant bank:

¶33

(i) Sale cum Construction Agreement dated 28.09.2013 between M/s RK Foundation, Rep. by its Partners Raju & Koteeswaran and Mr. S. Suresh Babu;

¶34

(ii) Sale Deed dated 07.11.2013 executed by Mr. A. Raju and Mr. Koteeswaran in favour of Mr. S. Suresh Babu, registered as Document No.15257 of 2013 before SRO, Guduvancheri.

¶35

The Applicant Bank submits that the Defendant, after availing the said facilities, failed to repay the loan amount despite several reminders and thus committed default. The loan account was classified as NPA in accordance with RBI guidelines. The default in repayment continued and there was no positive response from the defendants. Hence, this Original Application (OA) has been filed to recover the dues from the defendants.

¶36

T.A. No. 1471/2023 (E)

¶37

17.02.2025

¶38

¶39

After the filing of the OA, summons was sent to the Defendant through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due , which was duly served. When OA was taken up on 27.07.2021, even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendant. Hence, defendant was placed ex-parte on 27.07.2021.

¶40

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the records.

¶41

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Shri. T.S.V. Ramana, Chief Manager and Authorised officer, ARMB, 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-7. As the defendants remained ex-parte, the OA claim remains unchallenged. There is no contra evidence available on record to repudiate the claim of the Applicant Bank.

¶42

It is submitted by applicant bank that during the pendency of OA, applicant bank had initiated action under SARFAESI Act and sold the mortgaged property in public auction for a sum of Rs.20,75,000/- and sale certificate was issued to successful bidder on 01.06.2021.

¶43

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:

¶44

: O R D E R:

¶45

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶46

T.A. No. 1471/2023 (E)

¶47

17.02.2025

¶48

¶49

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendant a sum of Rs.21,94,612.06p (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve and Six Paise only) due in respect of Housing Loan facility together with further interest @ 9.35% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization.

¶50

(b) The sum of Rs.20,75,000/- realized by way of SARFAESI sale is directed to be given credit to the borrower’s loan account as on the date of realization.

¶51

(c) 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.

¶52

(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 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.

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

(g) All pending IAs, if any, stands closed.

¶56

T.A. No. 1471/2023 (E)

¶57

17.02.2025

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

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

¶62

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 17^th day of February, 2025)

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶65

AW-1: Shri. T.S.V. Ramana, Chief Manager and Authorised officer, ARMB

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	Proof of Authorisation authorizing the Chief Manager to represent the Bank	A-1
2.	Loan application given by Defendant to the applicant Bankdated24.10.2013	A-2
3.	Letter of Arrangement given by Applicant Bank to the defendant dated 06.11.2013	A-3
4.	Memorandum of Agreement for Home loan between Applicant Bank and the defendant dated 06.11.2013	A-4
5.	The defendant had given a Declaration for the same to SBI LifeInsurance dated 06.11.2013	A-5
6.	Sale Certificate issued by the Applicant Bank dated 01.06.2021	A-6
7.	Statement of Account	A-7

¶68

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶69

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶70

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

State Bank of India v. Suresh Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Suresh Babu

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

Gowtham Raja versus Indo Star Capital Finance Limited

Kmadeshwaran versus State Bank of India

Sri Raja Rajeshwari Transport versus Indian Bank

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. arcil in its capacity as trustee of Arcil Sbps I Trust repy by its authorized officer Yuvek J versus v Ismail and others

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S Shristi Construction Quipments

Yes Bank versus M s Win Star Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.