Allowed

State Bank of India v. B Kalatharan

DRT6 May 2026OA/290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a home loan. The bank proved its claim via affidavit and documents. The defendants did not appear or contest. The Tribunal held the bank is entitled to recover the principal and interest from the borrowers and the builder jointly.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.2,41,64,246/- with interest at 7.35% p.a. from the defendants jointly and severally, and liberty to recover via sale of scheduled property.

State Bank of India versus B Kalatharan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No.290 of 2022

¶2

06.05.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 06^th day of May, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.290 of 2022

¶8

State Bank of India, RACPC Tambaram Branch, Satheesh paradise, first floor, No.388, Velachery Main road, Selaiyur, Chennai-600 073

¶9

Represented by its Chief Manager ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

B.Kalatharan,

¶12

S/o. Balachandran, 5/153, Gopal Market, Madipakkam,

¶13

Chennai-600 091

¶14

RJ Rishikaran projects private limited 21/6 Ground floor,

¶15

Craig park layout, MG road,

¶16

Bangalore- 560001

¶17

Represented by its Managing Director …..Defendants

¶18

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶19

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. O. Padmaprakash

¶20

Defendants 1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 21.11.2022

¶21

: - FINAL ORDER- :

¶22

This Original Application is filed on 02.09.2022 by the applicant bank

¶23

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.2,41,64,246/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty One

¶24

O.A. No.290 of 2022

¶25

¶26

06.05.2026

¶27

Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Six only) due in respect of Home loan (A/c No. 50200008447549) repayable together with further interest @ 7.35% 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 OA.

¶28

Brief Facts of the case:

¶29

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.

¶30

It is the case of the applicant bank that the 1^st defendant approached the Medavakkam Branch of the applicant during the year 2018, seeking a loan for purchase of a duplex unit of a super built up area of 3080 square feet and garden rights of 1227 square feet bearing No.C102 in “C” north corner block, RJ Brooke square together with an undivided share of an area of 1622.88 square feet out of the land of an area of 87,900square feet comprised in Survey No.109, 102,85 of Kundalahalli village, KR Kavitha, City Case officer Puram Hobli, Bangalore east taluk, Bangalore district, Karnataka morefully described in the schedule to the OA.

¶31

It is submitted by the applicant bank that considering the said request of the defendants, Home Loan of Rs.2,20,00,000/- was sanctioned to the 1^st defendant by the applicant vide Arrangement Letter dated

¶32

O.A. No.290 of 2022

¶33

¶34

06.05.2026

¶35

29.03.2019. The 1^st defendant executed Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public on 29.03.2019 towards the above loan. The 1^st defendant also executed an Agreement to Mortgage dated 29.03.2019 agreeing to mortgage the schedule property in favour of the applicant. The account was subsequently transferred to the RACPC, Tambaram branch of the applicant in terms of the internal policy of the applicant after the account was classified as non- performing asset.

¶36

In terms of the Sanction Letter and the Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public dated 29.03.2019 the dues under the above loan are repayable in Equated Monthly Instalments of Rs.1,76,227/- commencing from 15.04.2019 together with 0.65% above the 1year marginal cost of Fund Based Lending Rate (MCLR) which was 8.55% at the time of availing the loan. The effective rate was 9.2% on the date of availing the loan calculated on the daily balance of the loan amount with monthly rests. The applicant bank has not debited the interest during the NPA period in view of the directions of the RBI regarding income recognition and assets classification of loan accounts under which if an account is running irregular for more than three months if has to be classified as Non- performing asset. This however does not relieve the defendants from their liability to pay interest. Hence as per section 21A of the Banking regulations Act, 1949, the applicant bank is entitled to receive interest from the defendants until repayment is full. As per the statement of accounts interest has been charged up to 20.02.2022. The interest rate is subject to enhancement as may be

¶37

O.A. No.290 of 2022

¶38

06.05.2026

¶39

¶40

decided by the applicant bank in conformity with the terms agreed by the defendants. As per the said stipulation the present rate of interest payable by the defendants is 7.35% per annum with monthly rests. The applicant is also entitled to charge penal interest of 2% per month if the dues are irregular or not paid for a period of one month.

¶41

It is further submitted that in case valid mortgage is not created by the borrower within 60 days of execution of the said deed or issue of possession letter by builder which is earlier, the applicant is entitled to charge 2% penal interest for the delayed period on the entire outstanding. However, after availing the loan, the 1^st defendant failed and neglected to pay the dues properly and the account became Non-Performing Asset on 31.03.2021.

¶42

It is submitted that the 1^st defendant entered into a Sale Agreement dated 22.01.2019 with the 2^nd defendant who is the promoter of the construction of the schedule property and also entered into a Tripartite Agreement dated 16.02.2019 with the applicant and the 2^nd defendant. As per the Tripartite Agreement dated 16.02.2019, the construction of the flats are to be completed by 31.12.2019 with a grace period of three months. In terms of this agreement, the applicant shall have the first lien over the schedule property and it shall not be transferred to any other person without the prior written consent of the applicant. As per clause 5 of the aforesaid tripartite agreement the 2^nd defendant should execute a proper sale deed in favour of the 1^st defendant after receiving the entire consideration. As per Clause 6 of the agreement the loan amount should

¶43

O.A. No.290 of 2022

¶44

06.05.2026

¶45

¶46

be credited to the loan account No.50200008447549 of HDFC bank, MG road branch, Bangalore where the 2^nd defendant availed the finance facility for the project. As per clause 20 of the said agreement the responsibilities of the 2^nd defendant will be extinguished only after delivering the duly registered sale deed and handing over the possession of the schedule property to the 1^st defendant.

¶47

In accordance with the aforesaid terms under the Tripartite Agreement dated 16.02.2019 the applicant transferred the loan amount to said loan account of the 2^nd respondent with HDFC bank, MG road, Bangalore. However, the 2^nd defendant did not get the sale deed in favour of the 1^st defendant executed and registered. As per clause 15 of the Tripartite Agreement dated 16.02.2019, non-completion of the project or happening of any event will not affect the obligations of the 1^st defendant to repay the loan. As per clause 2 of the Tripartite Agreement, the applicant shall be entitled to request the 2^nd defendant to cancel the booking and return the amounts received by in the event of default in either repayment of the loan or any other default by the borrower. As per the clause 4 of the tripartite agreement in the event of the 2^nd defendant cancelling the booking or shelving the project or for any other reason whatsoever it shall repay the entire amount received on behalf of the 1^st defendant. Therefore the 1^st defendant as the borrower and the 2^nd defendant as the builder are jointly and severally liable to pay the sums due under the above loans. Hence, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the

¶48

O.A. No.290 of 2022

06.05.2026

defendants.

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the Defendants 1 and 2 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which was returned with remarks “left”. Applicant Bank had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 21.11.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, Defendants 1 and 2- were placed ex-parte on 21.11.2022.

¶53

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the record s.

¶54

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Ms. Kavitha, City Case officer of the Applicant Bank, has filed her 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 .

¶55

A careful examination of the pleadings in the Proof Affidavit and documents Exhibits A-1 to A-6 evidence that the borrowal of credit facilities and execution of loan and security documents are true, in terms

¶56

of averments made in Original Application as well as Proof Affidavit filed by applicant bank establishing its claim. Applicant bank filed Statement of Accounts duly certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, evidencing the amount claimed against defendants.

¶57

The defendants were set ex-parte on 21.11.2022, but till this day they did not take any action to set aside the ex-parte order and did not

¶58

O.A. No.290 of 2022

¶59

06.05.2026

¶60

¶61

choose to contest the claim. Further, a careful scrutiny of records makes it clear that present application is filed well within limitation and this Tribunal possesses necessary and proper jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claim. No oral or documentary evidence on the side of defendants are produced or filed to dispute the claim of applicant bank. Hence, it can be concluded that applicant bank has proved its claim against defendants.

¶62

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:

¶63

: O R D E R :

¶64

14. The OA is allowed with costs,

¶65

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.2,41,64,246/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty One Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Six only) due in respect of Home loan (A/c No. 50200008447549) repayable together with further interest @ 7.35% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application. All pending IAs, if any stands closed.

¶66

(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

¶67

O.A. No.290 of 2022

06.05.2026

OA schedule.

(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 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 Defendants to the applicant bank.

¶73

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

¶74

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

¶75

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

¶76

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

¶77

(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 06^th day of May, 2026)

¶78

ANNEXURES

¶79

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶80

AW-1: Ms. Kavitha, City Case officer of the Applicant Bank

¶81

O.A. No.290 of 2022

¶82

¶83

06.05.2026

¶84

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶85

Sl. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	29.03.2019	Arrangement letter	A-1
2.	29.03.2019	Memorandum of loan agreement for home loan granted to public	A-2
3.	29.03.2019	Agreement to mortgage	A-3
4.	22.01.2019	Sale agreement	A-4
5.	16.02.2019	Tripartite agreement	A-5
6.	29.03.2019 to 20.02.2022	Statement of accounts	A-6

¶86

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶87

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶88

SCHEDULE

¶89

All that duplex unit of super built up area of 3080 square Feet and garden rights of 1227 square feet bearing No.C.102 in “C” North corner block, RJ Brooke square, together with an undivided share of an area of 1622.88 square feet out of the land of an area of 87,900square feet comprised in Survey No.109, 102 and 85 of Kundalahalli Village, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District, Karnataka.

¶90

Bounded on the

¶91

North by: Vandana golden spring and B.M. Sharma apartments

¶92

South by: Road

¶93

East by: Rohan Ashima apartments

¶94

West by: Road

¶95

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

State Bank of India v. B Kalatharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. B Kalatharan

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

P Priyadharsini versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Mr SaiKrishnan versus Icici Bank Limited

Ksm Nirman Pvt. Ltd. versus Federal Bank

State Bank of India versus Dhatchanamoorthy

V Bharathi versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Pandiyan