Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Shabeer Ahmed

DRT11 Jun 2026TA/1513/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The court adjudicated the claim against borrower and guarantor in non-appearance, directing recovery of the balance amount after accounting for property sale proceeds, along with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing recovery of Rs. 24,85,082.04 plus interest and costs from respondents jointly and severally; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Shabeer Ahmed — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.1513 of 2023

¶2

11.06.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No.1513 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA No.201 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1513 of 2023)

¶9

The Karur Vysya Bank, Asset Recovery Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager, 2^nd Floor, No.1, Padmavathiyar Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai- 600 086 …Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Mr. S. Shabeer Ahamed, S/o Mr. Shaik Babu, MIG-No.78, First street, Nolambur, Chennai- 600 037

¶12

Mrs. Karthiga, W/o Mr. S. Shabeer Ahamed, MIG-No.78, First street, Nolambur, Chennai- 600 037 …Defendants

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A. Arunbabu

¶15

Defendants 1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 17.05.2022

¶16

: - FINAL ORDER- :

¶17

This Original Application is filed on 20.04.2021 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, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.24,85,082.04p (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Five

¶18

T.A. No.1513 of 2023

¶19

¶20

11.06.2026

¶21

Thousand Eighty Two and Four Paise only) due in respect of Home Loan (A/c No.1257753000001016) repayable together with further interest @ 11.25% 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.

¶22

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.201 of 2021, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.201 of 2021 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1513 of 2023.

¶23

Brief Facts of the case:

¶24

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.

¶25

It is the case of the applicant bank that the first defendant approached the applicant bank during the year 2015 and requested for Happy Home Loan for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two lakhs) for the purpose of purchasing residential vacant land in Veppampattu Village and construction thereon.

¶26

It is submitted by the applicant bank that considering the request of the 1^st defendant, the applicant bank had sanctioned the loan of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs) vide Credit Sanction Intimation

¶27

T.A. No.1513 of 2023

¶28

¶29

11.06.2026

¶30

dated 28.03.2015. The said loan is repayable in 240 EMI monthly instalments of Rs.22,335.04p each together with an interest @10.75% p.a. compounded with monthly rests or at such rates and rests as may be revised by the bank from time to time. The first defendant accepted the terms and conditions and executed the following necessary loan documents on 28.03.2015 in favour of applicant bank:

¶31

i. Demand Promissory Note

¶32

ii. Letter of Undertaking to repay in installment

¶33

iii. Term Loan Agreement for Housing Finance.

¶34

It is submitted by the applicant bank that the second defendant herein stood as Guarantor and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 28.03.2015 towards the loan availed by the first defendant. Further to that the first defendant mortgaged his property at Veppampattu Village vide a form of Memorandum of Registration dated 13.05.2015 registered as Doc.No.5485/2015 as a security towards the loan availed which is morefully described in the schedule to the OA.

¶35

The applicant submits that even though the defendants had executed necessary documents towards the loan availed, the repayment towards the said loan was highly irregular. Despite various demands and reminders made by the applicant bank, the defendant had failed and neglected to repay the amount due. Consequently, the loan account had become Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 14.09.2019 as per the RBI norms.

¶36

The applicant has not debited interest for the aforesaid credit facility

¶37

T.A. No.1513 of 2023

¶38

11.06.2026

¶39

¶40

of the defendants since the date of NPA in view of the directions regarding Income recognition and asset classification of loan accounts according to which an account irregular for more than 90 days becomes classified as an NPA. However, this does not relieve the defendants from the liability to pay any interest in respect of the loan accounts from the date of the NPA.

¶41

It is submitted by the applicant bank that since the account turned as NPA, with no other option, the applicant bank through its Authorised Officer had issued Demand Notice on 14.10.2019 under SARFAESI proceedings against the property that was given as a security towards the loan account. Further the applicant bank had also taken symbolic possession of the property by issuing possession notice to the defendants on 22.01.2020. Inspite of the notices, the defendants did not come forward to settle the issue. Therefore, the applicant bank issued sale notice on 23.10.2020 fixing the auction sale on 04.12.2020. However, the sale could not be conducted due to want of bidders. Even after repeated reminders made by the applicant bank, the defendants have failed and neglected to repay the amount due. Hence, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendants.

¶42

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 ‘No such person’ respect of D-1 and D-2. Applicant Bank had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof.

¶43

T.A. No.1513 of 2023

¶44

11.06.2026

¶45

¶46

When OA was taken up on 17.05.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, Defendants 1 and 2 were placed ex-parte on 17.05.2022.

¶47

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the records.

¶48

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. P.S. Sundaravarathan, 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-11.

¶49

A careful examination of the pleadings in the Proof Affidavit and documents Exhibits A-1 to A-11 evidence that the borrowal of credit facilities and execution of loan and security documents are true, in terms 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.

¶50

The defendants were set ex-parte on 17.05.2022, but till this day they did not take any action to set aside the ex-parte order and did not 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.

¶51

T.A. No.1513 of 2023

¶52

11.06.2026

¶53

¶54

Hence, it can be concluded that applicant bank has proved its claim against defendants.

¶55

During the pendency of OA, Applicant Bank had reported part satisfaction of OA claim in a sum of Rs.12,70,000/- by way of sale of Schedule immovable property under SARFAESI Act on 26.05.2021. Accordingly, part satisfaction of sum of Rs. 12,70,000/- was duly recorded vide proceedings dated 05.07.2024 order and documents marked as Ex A-7 were returned to applicant bank on 02.09.2024 under proper acknowledgement.

¶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

16. The OA is allowed with costs,

¶59

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.24,85,082.04p (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Eighty Two and Four Paise only) due in respect of Home Loan (A/c No.1257753000001016) repayable together with further interest @ 11.25% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

¶60

T.A. No.1513 of 2023

¶61

11.06.2026

¶62

¶63

(b) The sum of Rs.12,70,000/- realized by way of sale of schedule mentioned immovable property is directed to be given credit to the borrower’s loan account as on date of realization.

¶64

¶65

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.

¶66

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

¶67

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

¶68

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

¶69

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

¶70

(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 11^th day of June, 2026)

¶71

ANNEXURES

¶72

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶73

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

¶74

T.A. No.1513 of 2023

¶75

¶76

11.06.2026

¶77

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶78

Sl.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit
No.			No.
1.	28.03.2015	Credit sanction intimation	A-1
2.	28.03.2015	Demandpromissorynote	A-2
3.	28.03.2015	Letter of undertaking to repay in instalments	A-3
4.	28.03.2015	Term loan agreement for housingfinance	A-4
5.	28.03.2015	Agreement ofguarantee	A-5
6.	13.05.2015	Form of memorandum for registration registered as Doc.No.5485/2015	A-6
7.	30.03.2015	Sale deed registered as Doc.No.3825/2015	A-7
8.	30.03.2015	Demand notice	A-8
9.	14.10.2019	Possession notice	A-9
10.	22.01.2020	Sale notice	A-10
11.	23.10.2020	Statement of accounts	A-11

¶79

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶80

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶81

:-SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY-:

¶82

Mortgaged property has been sold under the SARFAESI Act.

¶83

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

Karur Vysya Bank v. Shabeer Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Shabeer Ahmed

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

Central Bank of India versus Sasi

Mrs Meera Jayaram versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Uma Mageswari

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Archana Syntheticss

Canara Bank versus Vasantham Enterprises

Ms Sri Venkateswara Educational Trust versus Icici Bank Limited