Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. James Saviour

DRT14 Mar 2025TA/392/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Punjab National Bank against two defendants for recovery of a housing loan amounting to Rs. 49.79 lakhs along with interest and costs, noting the claim was unchallenged due to their ex-parte non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.49,79,917/ and interest; direction to credit SARFAESI proceeds; liberty to sell personal assets for balance dues; issuance of recovery certificate.

Punjab National Bank versus James Saviour — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

TA 392 of 2023

14.03.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 392 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 331 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No 392 of 2023)

¶9

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

¶10

(IFSC code: PUNB0252400) Mint Street Branch No.35, Mini Street, Chennai – 600 079 Represented by its Senior Manager ….Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

1. Mr. JAMES SAVIOUR

¶13

S/o Mr. Arokia Raj No.34/18, 2^nd Street Abirami Avenue KKD Nagar Kodungaiyur Chennai – 600 118

¶14

2. Ms. JANANI C

¶15

D/o Mr. Chninnaraj No. 215 1^st Floor Madhavaram High Road Perambur Chennai – 600 011

¶16

Also at: No.34/18, 2^nd Street Abirami Avenue KKD Nagar Kodungaiyur Chennai – 600 118 …..Defendants

¶17

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶18

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S. Anuradha Balaji

¶19

Defendants 1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 30.08.2022

TA 392 of 2023

14.03.2025

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶24

This original application is filed on 06.07.2020 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 defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.49,79,917/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen Only) due in respect of Housing Loan (Account No.252400NC00166883) together with further interest @ 9.25% p.a. and penal interest @ 2% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realization in full, for sale of schedule mentioned immovable property and for costs of this application.

¶25

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.331 of 2020, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.331 of 2020 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.392 of 2023.

¶26

Brief Facts of the case:

¶27

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.

TA 392 of 2023

14.03.2025

It is the case of the Applicant Bank that the 1^st defendant had approached the applicant bank in the year 2015 for grant of Housing Loan for purchase of the Schedule Property.

¶32

It is submitted by the Applicant Bank that upon considering the said request, applicant bank had sanctioned a Housing Loan of a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) to the 1^st defendant. The said loan was sanctioned against the security of the equitable mortgage of the immovable property owned by the 1^st defendant ay Ayapakkam Village detailed in the schedule hereunder and against the personal guarantee of the 2^nd defendant. The said sanction was communicated by the Applicant Bank to the defendants on 30.03.2015, who have duly acknowledged the same accepting the terms and conditions contained therein.

¶33

It is submitted that the 1^st defendant herein availed the said Housing Loan of sum of Rs.40,00,000/- from the Applicant Bank on 31.03.2015. In consideration thereof and to secure the same, the 1^st defendant as the borrower and the 2^nd defendant as the guarantor had executed the following loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank on 31.03.2015.

¶34

(i) Agreement for Housing Loan executed by the 1^st defendant;

¶35

(ii) Agreement for Guarantee executed by the 2^nd defendant.

TA 392 of 2023

14.03.2025

It is submitted that to secure the outstanding in the Loan account, the 1^st defendant mortgaged the property owned by him morefully detailed in schedule to OA. The mortgage was created by the 1^st defendant on 26.05.2015 by deposit of original title deeds with the applicant bank with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same. The 1^st defendant executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 28.07.2015, registered as Doc.No.14942/2015, S.R.O. Ambattur, confirming the deposit of title deeds and thereby creating equitable mortgage over the schedule property.

¶40

The Applicant Bank submitted that the 1^st defendant had also independently executed Balance and Security Confirmation letter on 22.03.2018 and confirmed the balance in the loan account as on 31.12.2017 as well as the execution of the security documents.

¶41

It is submitted that in view of failure on the part of the defendants to make any payment the applicant bank is compelled to file this application against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,79,917/- together with interest at the rate of 9.25% per annum and penal interest at 2% per annum.

¶42

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the Defendants 1 and 2 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which returned unserved with postal endorsement as ‘Refused’, which is deemed service.

TA 392 of 2023

14.03.2025

When OA was taken up on 30.08.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, Defendant were placed ex-parte on 30.08.2022.

¶47

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the records.

¶48

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. P, Mahendran, Chief Manager of 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-6 . As the Defendants remained exparte, the OA claim remains unchallenged. There is no contra evidence available on record to repudiate the claim of the Applicant Bank.

¶49

During the pendency of OA, applicant bank had reported part satisfaction of the OA claim in a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- by way of sale of secured asset under SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, part satisfaction of the OA claim was duly recorded.

¶50

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:

TA 392 of 2023

14.03.2025

: O R D E R :

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶56

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants 1 and 2, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.49,79,917/(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen Only) due in respect of Housing Loan (Account No.252400NC00166883) together with further interest @ 9.25% p.a. and penal interest @ 2% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realization in full and for costs of this application;

¶57

(b) A sum of Rs.35,00,000/- realized by way of sale under SARFAESI Act is directed to be given credit to the borrower’s loan account as on the date of realization.

¶58

(c) The applicant bank is at liberty to sell the personal assets of the Defendants 1 and 2 (both movable and immovable) to recover the balance dues as required under law for which the Defendants to disclose to the Tribunal particulars of other properties or assets owned by the Defendants;

¶59

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

TA 392 of 2023

14.03.2025

Defendant duly considering the amounts, if any, paid by the Defendant 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 Defendant to the applicant bank.

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

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

¶69

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 14^th day

¶70

of March, 2025)

¶71

ANNEXURES

¶72

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶73

AW-1: Sh. P. Mahendran, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank

¶74

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶75

Sl.	Description of Documents	Exhibit
No.		No.
1.	Sanction of Housing Loan Facility issued by the	A-1

TA 392 of 2023

14.03.2025

	Applicant Bank 30.03.2015
2.	Agreement For Housing Loan executed by the defendants 31.03.2015	A-2
3.	Agreement of Guarantee executed by the 2^nd defendant 31.03.2015	A-3
4.	Balance and Security Confirmation Letter executed by the 1^stdefendant 22.03.2018	A-4
5.	Demand notice under Section 13(2) of Sarfaesi Act issued by the applicant bank to the defendants along with proof of service	A-5
6.	Statement of Accounts in respect of Over Draft Account No.252400NC00166883 along with Memorandum of Interest	A-6

¶80

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶81

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶82

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

Punjab National Bank v. James Saviour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. James Saviour

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

Subramani Ravi versus India Infoline Housing Finance Limited

Mrs v Geetha versus Indian Bank

V Prabhakaran versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S J J Chaat and Beverage

Murugan and others versus Hdfc Bank

R Karthikeyan versus Rbl Bank Limited