Allowed

State Bank of India, Sarb v. K. Ramesh Kumar

DRT17 Dec 2025TA/160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court held that the bank proved the loan disbursement and outstanding dues. It ordered recovery of the principal amount plus interest at a reduced rate and permitted sale of the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate directed for recovery of Rs. 1,45,61,825.49 plus interest at 8% per annum; sale of schedule property permitted.

State Bank of India, Sarb versus K. Ramesh Kumar — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 17^th day of December, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.160 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.34 of 2022 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.160 of 2022)

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB 32, Montieth Road, Red Cross Building Egmore, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 008 Represented by its City Case Officer

¶7

S. Kavita W/o Stalin …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

K. Ramesh Kumar S/o Kasinathan Plot No.5C, SRM Garden Vetri Nagar, J.B. Estate, Avadi Tiruvalllur District …Defendant

¶10

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶11

Counsel for Applicant Bank : Mrs. S.R. Sumathy Defendant ex-parte on 09.01.2024

¶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 an aggregate sum of Rs.1,45,61,825.49p comprising a sum of Rs.1,01,01,262.73p with

¶14

further interest at the rate of 8% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under Home Loan Account and a sum of Rs.44,60,562.76p

¶15

¶16

with further interest at the rate of 8.10% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under Home Loan Top up Account from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶17

The subject matter of the case is the housing loan availed by the defendant from the Applicant Bank.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan vide application dated 30.01.2018 and considering the said request the applicant vide its sanction letter dated 14.02.2018 sanctioned Home Loan of Rs.97,26,000/- to the defendant and top up loan of Rs.35,00,000/- on 18.02.2018.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant executed various loan and security documents on 16.02.2018. It is stated that the defendant also deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned property with the applicant bank with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 26.02.2018 registered as Doc. No.512/2018 on the file of SRO, Cuddalore, Joint-I.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant bank that the defendant defaulted in repayment and hence the loan account was classified as NPA on

¶21

¶22

14.04.2019 and as no payment was forthcoming the applicant bank invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued the demand notice dated 21.04.2021. Despite the said notice the defendant 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 was served and was represented by Ld. Counsel. However, the defendant did not choose to file his reply statement despite granting sufficient time and hence was set exparte on 09.01.2024. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 12 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-12 on 09.01.2024. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 21.11.2025 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

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

¶29

¶30

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-12 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 an 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.

¶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) TA No.160 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶36

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregatesum of Rs.1,45,61,825.49p 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.

¶37

(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.

¶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

13. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶42

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 17^th day of December, 2025)

¶45

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶46

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.	30.01.2018	Home Loan Application	A-1
2.	14.02.2018	Sanction Letter	A-2
3.	16.02.2018	Arrangement Letter	A-3
4.	16.02.2018	Memorandum of Loan Agreement by defendant	A-4
5.	16.02.2018	Agreement to mortgage executed by defendant	A-5
6.	16.02.2018	Deed of undertaking by defendant	A-6
7.	16.02.2018	Loan Agreement Home Top up Loan	A-7
8.	16.02.2018	Arrangement Letter–Home Top-up Loan	A-8
9.	31.05.2017	Registered sale deed executed by Mr. A. Savarimuthu in favour of defendant – Doc. No.1081/2017	A-9
10.	26.02.2018	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds by defendant registered as Doc. No.512/2018	A-10
11.		Statement of Account–Home Loan Account	A-11
12.		Statement of Account – Home Loan Top-up account.	A-12

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶50

All that piece and parcel of land measuring an extent of 25821/2 sq. feet or 265 Sq. mtr. Together with building constructed bearing Plot No.5 comprised in Town Survey No.2339 and 2340, Block No.42, Ward No.7, Vallalar Nagar approved by Salem Town Planning Authority No. LP/R9Se) No.71/1979 situated at Village – Vilvarayanatham (the mention property presently located at New Town Survey No.4686, Block No. 64 Ward No.7) Cuddalore Town, Cuddalore Taluk and district and land being

¶51

North of	- Layout 30 ft Road
South of	- Land belongs to Mr. Rajangam Padayachi land
East of	- Plot No.6
West of	- Plot No.4

¶52

East to West Northern side - 50 feet East to West Southern side - 50 feet North to South Eastern side - 56 feet North to South Western side - 57 ½ feet

¶53

Total - 2852 ½ sq. feet or 265 sq. mtr.

¶54

Within the Registration District of Cuddalore, Sub Registration District of Cuddalore, Joint I together with all the building and structures thereon, rights, fixtures, electrical fittings and to the earth permanently fastened anything attached to the earth both present and future.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

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

¶57

State Bank of India, Sarb v. K. Ramesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India, Sarb v. K. Ramesh Kumar

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

M/s City Union Bank Limited versus M/s Mgm Granites

A Ravichandran versus Indian Bank

Ravichandran versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus M. Shanmugam

Dbs Bank India Ltd., versus M/s Star Roofing Sheets

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s M.G.A. Mining Company