Allowed

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Senniappan

DRT9 Sept 2025TA/481/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application filed by Union Bank of India to recover a housing loan default amount of Rs. 23,22,487.45 plus interest. The respondents were set ex-parte for non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,22,487.45 with interest and costs, and liberty to sell mortgaged property and personal assets to recover dues.

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 481 of 2023

¶2

09.09.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 09^th day of September, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 481 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 112/2022 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No 481 of 2023)

¶9

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Mint Street Branch, No. 21, Nainiappa Naicken Street, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

V. Senniappan, S/o. M. Veerappan, No.37/77, Bangaru Naicken Street, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

Also At

¶13

V. Senniappan, S/o. M. Veerappan, No. 30/59, Thulasingam Naicken Street, Pudupet, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶14

V. Elumalai S/o. M. Veerappan, No. 37/77, Bangaru Naicken Street, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶15

Also At

¶16

V. Elumalai S/o. M. Veerappan, No. 30/59, Thulasingam Naicken Street, Pudupet, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002

¶17

T.A. No. 481 of 2023

¶18

¶19

09.09.2025

¶20

V. Murugan S/o. M. Veerappan, No. 37/77, Bangaru Naicken Street, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶21

Also At

¶22

V. Murugan S/o. M. Veerappan No. 30/59, Thulasingam Naicken Street, Pudupet, Anna Salai. Chennai – 600 002. …..Defendants

¶23

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶24

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K. Sarath Babu Defendants 1 to 3 were set ex-parte on 22.09.2022

¶25

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶26

This Original Application is filed on 21.01.2022 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.23,22,487.45p (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Seven and Forty Five Paisa Only) due in respect of Housing Loan Facility (A/c. No. 560631000048594) repayable together with further interest @ 12.50% per annum and penal interest @2% p.a., 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.

¶27

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.112 of 2022, and thereafter in pursuance to the

¶28

T.A. No. 481 of 2023

¶29

¶30

09.09.2025

¶31

notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.112 of 2022 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.481 of 2023.

¶32

Brief Facts of the case:

¶33

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.

¶34

It is the case of the Applicant Bank that the Defendants had applied for a loan for take over of Housing Loan at Punjab National Bank, Anna Salai Branch. The applicant bank upon considering the loan application of Defendants had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 21,22,092/- (20,00,000 + 1,22,092) on 20.09.2004. The said loan is repayable by the Defendants in 240 equal monthly installments of Rs. 17,040/- EMI per month. Further the EMI comprises of principle interest and interest tax calculated on quarterly rests at the rate of 8.25% per annum with floating rate of interest linked to retail prime lending rate along with other terms and conditions.

¶35

It is submitted by the applicant bank that, thereafter, the defendants had deposited the title deed dated 20.09.2004 in favour of the Applicant Bank and mortgaged the immovable property with the bank morefully detailed in schedule to the OA.

¶36

The applicant bank further submitted that, subsequent to availing of loan, in view of the failure of the Defendants 1 to 3 to pay the dues in

¶37

T.A. No. 481 of 2023

¶38

09.09.2025

¶39

¶40

respect of the above housing loan satisfactorily as is required, in terms of the RBI guidelines as to the income recognition and prudential accounting norms, the applicant bank had classified the respondent's account as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 19.10.2020. Thereafter, on 12.05.2021 the applicant bank had issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act calling upon the Defendants to discharge their liability of an outstanding balance of Rs. 21,51,987.45/- as on the date. But, the defendants neither replied to the said notice nor had challenged the said notice. Further the applicant bank is taking steps against the Defendants to sell the immovable property under SARFAESI Act. As defendants did not come forward to repay the dues, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery its dues from the defendants.

¶41

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to defendants 1 to 3 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which was duly served to defendants 1 to 3. When OA was taken up on 22.09.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, defendants 1 to 3 were placed ex-parte on 22.09.2022.

¶42

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the records.

¶43

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. J. Vetri Selvan, Chief Manager representing the Applicant Bank, has filed her Affidavit by way of

¶44

T.A. No. 481 of 2023

¶45

09.09.2025

¶46

¶47

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.

¶48

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:

¶49

: O R D E R :

¶50

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶51

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants a sum of total sum of Rs.23,22,487.45p (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Seven and Forty Five Paisa Only) due in respect of Housing Loan Facility (A/c. No. 560631000048594) repayable together with further interest @ 12.50% per annum and penal interest @2% p.a., from the date of filing the OA till date of realization in full along with costs.

¶52

(b) In the event of failure of the defendants to pay the aforesaid amount, the bank is at liberty to recover the amount by sale of the schedule mentioned immovable property morefully detailed in the OA.

¶53

T.A. No. 481 of 2023

09.09.2025

(d) If the sale proceeds of the schedule mentioned mortgaged property is not sufficient to satisfy the dues as ordered above, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the personal assets of the defendants (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.

¶58

(e) 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.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

T.A. No. 481 of 2023

¶62

09.09.2025

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

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

¶67

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 09^th day of September, 2025)

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶70

AW-1: Sh. J. Vetri Selvan, Chief Manager representing the Applicant Bank.

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	Credit Sanction Intimation for Rs. 21,22,092/- dated 20.09.2004.	A-1
2.	Letter of Consent dated 20.09.2004.	A-2
3.	Agreement for Term Loans dated 20.09.2004.	A-3
4.	Arbitration Agreement dated 20.09.2004.	A-4
5.	Memorandum of Deposit Title Deeds dated 20.09.2004.	A-5
6.	Demand Notice along with Acknowledgement card dated 12.05.2021.	A-6
7.	Statement of Accounts along with BBE Certificate	A-7

¶73

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶74

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶75

SCHEDULE

¶76

All that piece and parcel of land measuring 1188 sq.ft together with a house bearing (Old No. 132) New No.90, Dr. Besant Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014 comprised in S.No. 96, R.S. No. 1372 and subsequent R.S. No. 1338/3, situated at Triplicane-Mylapore Taluk Chennai District Bounded on the:

¶77

T.A. No. 481 of 2023

¶78

¶79

09.09.2025

¶80

North by: Remaining portion of the land South by: Dr. Besant Road East by: Johny Mujan Alidullah Lubhai House West by: Haji Shaik Hussian Street

¶81

And situated within the registration sub district of Triplicane.

¶82

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

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Senniappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Senniappan

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

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus Sridhar

State Bank of India versus Mahendran

M Arulmurugan versus 151

Union Bank of India versus Madusudhanan

City Union Bank Limited versus Bois Technologies Private Limited

Indian Bank versus Vijeyendra Kumar