Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Mamta Bohra

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application filed by a bank under the RDB Act for issuance of a recovery certificate for home loan dues, the Tribunal allowed the application noting the unchallenged proof of loan disbursement and outstanding dues, permitting recovery through sale of properties or personal liability.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed; bank permitted to realize Rs.20,13,699.53 plus 9% interest; issue recovery certificate; defendants liable jointly and severally.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mamta Bohra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of March, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA No.271 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India Retail Assets Centralized Processing Centre No.16, Whannels Road, First Floor, Egmore Chennai – 600 008 Represented by its Chief Manager …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Mamta Bohra, W/o Late Pramod Kumar Bohra Plot No.11, Flat No.5, “B” Block, spring Dale MMM Mahaveer Garden

¶8

Kavankarai, Chennai – 600 066

¶9

Mrs. Shanthi Bohra Mother of Late Pramod Kumar Bohra Plot No.11, Flat No.5, “B” Block, spring Dale MMM Mahaveer Garden

¶10

Kavankarai, Chennai – 600 066

¶11

Minor Oourvasi Bohra D/o Late Pramod Kumar Bohra

¶12

Rep. by Mother and Natural Guardian

¶13

Mrs. P. Mamta Bohra

¶14

Plot No.11, Flat No.5, “B” Block, spring Dale MMM Mahaveer Garden

¶15

Kavankarai, Chennai – 600 066

¶16

Minor Krishna Bohra

¶17

S/o Late Pramod Kumar Bohra Rep. by Mother and Natural Guardian

¶18

Mrs. P. Mamta Bohra

¶19

Plot No.11, Flat No.5, “B” Block, spring Dale MMM Mahaveer Garden Kavankarai, Chennai – 600 066 …Defendants

¶20

¶21

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶22

Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s Suresh Law Associates Defendants ex-parte on 27.12.2023

¶23

FINAL ORDER

¶24

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 an aggregate sum of Rs.20,13,699.53p comprising a sum of Rs.12,72,544.97p together with interest at the rate of 9.45% p.a. with monthly rests being the amount due under Home Loan Account and a sum of Rs.7,41,154.56p together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum with monthly rests 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 properties.

¶25

The subject matter of the case is the Home Loan availed by the defendants from the Applicant Bank.

¶26

It is the case of the applicant that the Late Pramod Kumar Bohra and 1^st defendant approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan by submitting loan application dated 25.05.2020 and the applicant considering the said request vide its sanction letter dated 23.06.2020 sanctioned a home loan of Rs.10,50,000/- repayable in equated monthly installments of

¶27

¶28

Rs.9235/-. It is also the case of the applicant that the Late Pramod Kumar Bohra and the 1^st defendant executed necessary loan document on 25.6.2020. It is the further case of the applicant that the Late Pramod Kumar Bohra deposited the title deeds of the property with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 04.08.2020.

¶29

It is also the case of the applicant that Late Pramod Kumar Bohra and the 1^st defendant again approached the applicant for grant of home top-up loan by submitting application dated 5.6.2020 and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- vide its sanction dated 25.6.2020. It is stated that the Late Pramod Kumar Bohra and the 1^st defendant executed necessary loan and security documents on 29.6.2020.

¶30

It is the further case of the applicant that Pramod Kumar Bohra died on 26.04.2021 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs.

¶31

It is also stated that the borrowers were highly irregular in repayment and failed to regularize the loan account despite repeated demands and hence the loan account was classified as NPA on 10.12.2021. It is further stated that the applicant thereafter issued a demand notice on 31.12.2021 to all the legal heirs requesting the defendants to clear the outstanding dues but in vain. Hence the present OA is filed for recovery of its dues.

¶32

¶33

Summons was taken out to the defendants and the 1^st defendant appeared in person on 08.09.2023 and submitted that she is appearing on behalf of her and on behalf of other defendants. As the defendants were absent and as there was no representation for the defendants on 27.12.2023, they were set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 17 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-17 on 27.06.2024, however, Exhibits A-14 to A-16 were marked subject to proof. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 07.01.2026 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

These issues are considered together.

¶38

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

¶39

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-17 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant

¶40

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is a home 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.

¶44

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: -

¶45

¶46

(a) OA No.271 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶47

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.20,13,699.53p- with further interest @9% per annum (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 property and other assets of the defendants. However, the liability of defendants 2 to 4 are restricted to the extent of estate devolved upon them from the deceased Mr. Pramod Kumar Bohra.

¶48

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the 1^st defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due as ordered above.

¶49

(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.

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

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.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

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

¶55

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 27^th day of March, 2026)

¶56

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶57

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.	25.05.2020	Loan application	A-1
2.	23.06.2020	Sanction letter	A-2
3.	25.06.2020	Arrangement Letter	A-3
4.	29.06.2020	Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public	A-4
5.	04.08.2020	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds (Doc. No.4664/2020)	A-5
6.	21.05.2013	Construction Agreement entered between Sure Foundation and Mrs. Mamta Bohra	A-6
7.	10.06.2013	Sale deed executed by Mr. Mathew Antony, Power Agent T. Deepa Pariya in favour of Mr. Pramod Kumar Bohra and Mrs. Mamta Bohra (Doc. No.6950/2013)	A-7
8.	29.06.2020 to 30.11.2021	State of Accounts along with Bankers’ Book Evidence Act	A-8
9.	05.06.2020	Loan Application – Top up loan	A-9

¶58

¶59

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
10.	25.06.2020	Sanction Letter	A-10
11.	29.06.2020	Arrangement Letter	A-11
12.	29.06.2020	Loan Agreement – Home Top up loan	A-12
13.	26.08.2020	Confirmation Letter	A-13
14.	06.08.2021	Death Certificate – Pramod Kumar Bohra	A-14
15.	06.08.2021	Legal heir certificate	A-15
16.	31.12.2021	Demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act along with returned covers	A-16
17.	29.06.2020 to 30.11.2021	Statement of accounts along with certificates under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

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

¶62

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶63

SCHEDULE – A

¶64

All that piece and parcel of the vacant land bearing Plot No.11 measuring an extent of 1537.5 sq. ft. of land situated at “MMM Sri Mahaveer Garden”, 5” (lay out approved vide CMDA No.17/2011) comprised in Survey No.375/2A1 as per Patta No.3140, New S. No.375/2A1A1A1, Puzhal Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Thiruvallur District, within the registration district of Chennai North, Registration Sub District of Redhills with the following particulars:

¶65

¶66

Plot No.11 bounded on the	Measuring
North by : Plot No.12	51 feet
South by : Plot No.10	51.5 feet
East by : Vacant Land	30 feet
West by : 24 Feet Road	30 feet

¶67

Admeasuring 1537.5 sq. ft., or thereabouts.

¶68

SCHEDULE ‘B’

¶69

320.5 sq. ft. of undivided share right title and interest over the Schedule-A property.

¶70

SCHEDULE ‘C’

¶71

An undivided share 320.5 sq. ft. of land together with flat area 510 sq. ft. along with EB connection and common rights and benefits in Ground Floor in the A Schedule, Flat No.5, Block No. B, Door No.B5, Spring Dale MMM Sri Mahaveer Garden 5, situated at Mahaveer Garden, Puzhal Village, Madhavaram Taluk, formerly Thiruvallur district presently Chennai District within the Chennai Corporation Limits.

¶72

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

¶73

State Bank of India v. Mr. Mamta Bohra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Mamta Bohra

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

State Bank of India versus Prathyusha Resources Infra Pvt. Ltd.

K murugan versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus M Madhavan

Canara Bank versus M s Nanjil Udhayam Chekku Oil

Sujayath Ali versus Canara Bank

M Sathyamurthy versus Dbs Bank Limited