Allowed

State Bank of India v. Arivalagan

DRT7 Jan 2026TA/116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant in debt recovery application was absconding and the application tried ex-parte. Tribunal allowed the application based on bank's affidavit evidence and ordered recovery of dues with interest via sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 2,88,77,931/- with interest at 7.45% p.a. and Rs. 12,06,116/- with interest at 7.35% p.a., plus costs, via sale of mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Arivalagan — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 116 of 2023

¶2

07.01.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 07^th day of January, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 116 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 424/2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No. 116 of 2023)

¶9

State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, MRC Nagar, No.4, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Rep. by its Chief Manager ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Mr. Arivalagan Periasamy, S/o Mr. Periasamy, Residing at, No.11/400 MIG TNHB Mullai Nagar, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045 …Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s M. Suresh

¶14

Defendant was set ex-parte on 28.06.2022

¶15

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶16

This Original Application is filed on 25.09.2020 by the applicant bank

¶17

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 defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.3,00,84,047/-

¶18

(Rupees Three Crores Eighty Four Thousand and Forty Seven only)

¶19

as follows:

¶20

i. A sum of Rs.2,88,77,931/- due in respect of Housing Term

¶21

T.A. No. 116 of 2023

¶22

¶23

07.01.2026

¶24

Loan (Account No.37926070994) repayable together with further interest @ 7.45% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation in full;

¶25

ii. A sum of Rs.12,06,116/- due in respect of SBI Suraksha Loan

¶26

(Account No.37886522946) repayable together with further interest @ 7.35% with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation in full;

¶27

for sale of schedule mentioned immovable property and for costs of this OA.

¶28

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.424 of 2020, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.424 of 2020 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.116 of 2023.

¶29

Brief Facts of the case:

¶30

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.

¶31

It is the case of the applicant bank that the defendant had approached applicant bank seeking financial assistance for purchase of House. Pursuant to the request of the Defendant, applicant bank had sanctioned the “Housing Loan” facility to the tune of Rs.2,65,50,000/- to the defendant subject to the terms and conditions as envisaged under the

¶32

T.A. No. 116 of 2023

¶33

¶34

07.01.2026

¶35

Arrangement Letter dated 05.09.2018 and Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public dated 05.09.2018. The Defendant had executed Memorandum relating to Deposit of Title deeds dated 06.09.2018.

¶36

It is submitted by the applicant bank that in order to secure the loan, the Defendant had executed the following loan documents thereby acknowledging the said loan amount availed from the Applicant Bank. The Defendant undertake to repay the loan amount in time without committing any default

¶37

a) Sanction Letter dated 05.09.2018

¶38

b) Arrangement Letter dated 05.09.2018

¶39

c) Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public dated 05.09.2018

¶40

d) Agreement to Mortgage dated 05.09.2018

¶41

e) Memorandum of Deposit dated 12.10.2018

¶42

f) Memorandum relating to Deposit of Title Deeds dated 06.09.2018

¶43

The applicant submits that the Defendant had undertaken to repay the loan amount together with interest as per the terms and conditions of the Arrangement Letter dated 05.09.2018. However, subsequent to the disbursement of the aforesaid “Housing Loan” and “SBI SURAKSHA Loan”, the Defendant has not been operating the account as per the terms and conditions. They have been repeatedly making representations to the

¶44

T.A. No. 116 of 2023

¶45

07.01.2026

¶46

¶47

Defendant to regularise the “Housing Loan” and “SBI SURAKSHA” accounts, but the Defendant did not take any concrete steps to regularise the loan account or to repay the loan amounts.

¶48

It is submitted by the applicant bank that the Defendant has not shown significant transaction to the utmost satisfaction of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant has failed to service the interest and principal due under the “Housing Loan” and “SBI SURAKSHA” loan accounts, consequently the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 15.01.2020 in the books of the Applicant Bank as per RBI guidelines. The Applicant Bank through its Authorised Officer has sent Demand Notice to the Defendant to repay the “Housing Loan” and “SBI SURAKSHA” loan amounts together with accumulated interest but evoked no response from Defendant. Hence, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendant.

¶49

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the Defendant through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, Summons to the sole Defendant returned with the remark “Left”. Applicant Bank had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 28.06.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendant. Hence, Defendant was placed ex-parte on 28.06.2022.

¶50

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the

¶51

record s.

¶52

T.A. No. 116 of 2023

¶53

07.01.2026

¶54

¶55

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. C. Arun Prasanth, City Case Officer, ARM Branch 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-11 . As the Defendant remained ex-parte, the OA claim remains unchallenged. There is no contra evidence available on record to repudiate the claim of the Applicant Bank.

¶56

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:

¶57

: O R D E R :

¶58

11. The OA is allowed with costs,

¶59

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendant, a total sum of Rs.3,00,84,047/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Four Thousand and Forty Seven only) as follows:

¶60

(i) A sum of Rs.2,88,77,931/- due in respect of Housing Term Loan (Account No.37926070994) repayable together with further interest @ 7.45% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation in full;

¶61

(ii) A sum of Rs.12,06,116/- due in respect of SBI Suraksha Loan (Account No.37886522946) repayable together with further interest @ 7.35% with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation in full along

¶62

T.A. No. 116 of 2023

¶63

07.01.2026

¶64

¶65

with costs of this application.

¶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 immovable property morefully detailed in the OA schedule.

¶67

¶68

(d) If the sale proceeds of the immovable property is not sufficient to satisfy the dues as ordered above, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the personal assets of the Defendant (both movable and immovable) to recover the balance dues as required under law for which the Defendant to disclose to the Tribunal particulars of other properties or assets owned by the Defendant.

¶69

(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 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.

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

T.A. No. 116 of 2023

¶73

07.01.2026

¶74

¶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 Steno (Arti), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 07^th day of January, 2026)

¶78

ANNEXURES

¶79

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶80

AW-1: Sh. C. Arun Prasanth, City Case Officer, ARM Branch of the Applicant

¶81

Bank

¶82

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶83

Sl.	Description of Documents	Exhibit
No.		No.
1.	Sanction Letter dated 05.09.2018	A-1
2.	Arrangement Letter dated 05.09.2018	A-2
3.	Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public dated 05.09.2018	A-3
4.	Agreement to Mortgage dated 05.09.2018	A-4
5.	Memorandum of Deposit dated 12.10.2018	A-5
6.	Memorandum relating to Deposit of Title Deeds (Doc. No.3674/2018) dated 06.09.2018	A-6
7.	Construction Agreement (Doc. No. 3661/2018) dated 06.09.2018	A-7
8.	Sale Deed executed by N.Dhandapani and others Power Agent M.Vedamurthy infavour of Arivalagan	A-8
	Periyasamy (Doc. No. 3666/2018) dated 06.02.2017
9.	13(2) Notice and Ack. and returned covers dated 21.01.2020	A-9
10.	Statement of Account dated 06.09.2018 to 18.09.2020	A-10
11.	Statement of Account dated 19.08.2018 to 18.09.2020	A-11

¶84

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶85

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶86

T.A. No. 116 of 2023

07.01.2026

SCHEDULE – A

All that piece and parcel of vacant land, measuring an extent of 6000 square feet bearing Door No.21, Plot No.6 part, situated at Sastri Street, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107, comprised in Old Survey No.160/3 part, Town Survey No’s 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 8/1, 8/2, Block No.60 of Koyambedu Village, Chennai District.

¶91

Bounded on the:-

¶92

North by : Plot No.15, South by : Land allotted to Mrs. M.Sivarani, East by : Plot No.5 & 20 feet Road, West by : Plot No.7

¶93

Land Measuring:-

¶94

East to west on the Northern side 75 feet

¶95

East to West on the Southern side 75 feet

¶96

North to South on the Eastern side 80 feet

¶97

North to South on the Western side 80 feet

¶98

In all admeasuring 6000 sq. feet lying within the Registration District of Chennai Central and Sub-Registration District of Anna Nagar

¶99

SCHEDULE – B

¶100

1500 sq. feet undivided share out of Schedule – A land measuring 6000 sq. feet

¶101

SCHEDULE - C

¶102

Flat Nos A1 & A2 in “A” Block at First Floor measuring 3000 Sq. feet super plinth area (inclusive of common areas and commons shares)

¶103

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

State Bank of India v. Arivalagan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Arivalagan

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

Punjab National Bank versus Felix Arokiarajan

State Bank of India versus Buchappa Fuels

Kanniyappan N and Dharageswari K versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Periyakkal Traders, Rep by Its Proprietor Mr.P.Dharmalingam

N Rasheeda Begum versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Stejo Bright Steel Industries Rep by Its Proprietor Mr a Stephen Raj