Allowed

State Bank of India v. Meganathan

DRT14 Jul 2026TA/377/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 93,46,305.52 against a borrower of State Bank of India. The Tribunal found that the bank proved its claim via documentary evidence while the defendant chose not to contest the ex-parte proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.93,46,305.52 for Housing and Suraksha loans with interest, and liberty to sell secured and personal assets for recovery of balance dues.

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

¶1

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶2

14.07.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No.377 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 244/2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No 377 of 2023)

¶9

State Bank of India ARM Branch Chennai, 44, 1^st Floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. Rep. by its Chief Manager

¶10

…Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

Mr. S. Meganathan No.13, Vijaya Nagar, Kolathur, Near Sivan Temple, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶13

Also at:

¶14

Mr. S. Meganathan Ms. Shine Plastics, No.18, Redhills Road, Bharathi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.

¶15

Also at:

¶16

Mr. S. Meganathan Flat No. S-1, 2^nd Floor, Plot Nos.45 A & 45 B New Door No.45, Old Door No.12A, Thiru Nagar 4^th street, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. …Defendant

¶17

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶18

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. E. Kumar Defendant was set ex-parte on 26.05.2022

¶19

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶20

¶21

14.07.2026

¶22

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶23

This Original Application is filed on 21.05.2020 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 defendant, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.93,46,305.52p

¶24

(Rupees Ninety Three Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Five and Fifty Two Paise only) as follows:

¶25

(i) A sum of Rs.89,79,214.45p due in respect of Housing Loan (Account No.37195232060) repayable together with further interest @ 8.80% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realisation in full;

¶26

(ii) A sum of Rs.3,67,091.07p due in respect of Suraksha Loan (Account No.37282865345) repayable together with further interest @ 8.80% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realisation in full;

¶27

for sale of immovable property morefully detailed in the schedule to the OA and for costs of this OA.

¶28

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.244 of 2020, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.244 of 2020 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.377 of 2023.

¶29

Brief Facts of the case:

¶30

The Applicant submits that the application is filed within the period of

¶31

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶32

¶33

14.07.2026

¶34

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.

¶35

It is the case of the applicant bank that the defendant had approached the applicant bank for purchasing a residential flat through Housing Term Loan facility and submitted application dated 19.09.2017 and also expressed his willingness to execute necessary loan documents and offered the proposed purchase of immovable property as security for the loan.

¶36

It is submitted by the applicant bank that considering the said request, the applicant bank has decided to sanction the loan to defendant and accordingly sanctioned a sum of Rs.86,62,000/- vide Arrangement Letter dated 27.09.2017 under the Home Loan for residential property which was repayable in 300 Equated Monthly Instalments of Rs.70,627/each.

¶37

The applicant further submits that in order to secure the loan, the defendant had executed the following documents in favour of applicant bank:

¶38

i. Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan granted to public dated 27.09.2017 between applicant bank and defendant

¶39

ii. Deed of undertaking dated 27.09.2017 executed by the defendant

¶40

iii. Agreement of mortgage dated 27.09.2017 executed by the defendant

¶41

iv. Precondition letter dated 27.09.2017 executed by the defendant

¶42

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶43

14.07.2026

¶44

¶45

The applicant submits that the defendant had deposited the following documents to secure the loan availed from the bank with an intention to create security interest under section 58(f) of T.P. Act in favour of the applicant bank:

¶46

i. Construction agreement dated 19.09.2017 (registered on 27.09.2017) registered as Doc.No.3817 of 2017 with SRO Kodambakkam executed by Mr. D. Santhosh in favour of Mr. S. Meganathan.

¶47

ii. Sale deed dated 27.09.2017 registered as Doc.No.3818 of 2017 with SRO Kodambakkam executed by Mrs. K. Amala in favour of Mr. S. Meganathan

¶48

It is submitted by the applicant bank that the defendant had executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 09.10.2017 registered as Doc.No.3933 of 2017 with SRO, Kodambakkam in favour of applicant bank for the credit facilities availed.

¶49

It is the further case of the applicant bank that the defendant had also availed Suraksha Loan of Rs.5,95,380/- to insure the property which is morefully detailed in the schedule to the OA and executed necessary documents for the same.

¶50

The applicant submits that subsequent to availing of loan, the defendant had defaulted in the repayment of loan despite several reminders. Consequently, the loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset (NPA) on 30.09.2019 and the applicant bank recalled the

¶51

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶52

14.07.2026

¶53

¶54

entire loan account by issuing the Demand Notice dated 01.10.2019. Thereafter, the loan account was transferred to ARM Branch. The applicant bank relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Transcore Case” reported in AIR (SC) – 2007 – 0 – 712 declaring that simultaneous proceedings is permissible, the applicant reserves rights to proceed simultaneously and to inform Tribunal by filing a suitable memo/ amendment of this application pursuant to the action initiated if any at a later date under SARFAESI Act. Despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant did not come forward to repay the dues. Hence, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendant.

¶55

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the sole Defendant through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which was returned with postal endorsement as ‘Left’. Applicant Bank had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 26.05.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, Defendant was placed ex-parte on 26.05.2022.

¶56

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the

¶57

record s.

¶58

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Shri. Jithin Anto, Deputy 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

¶59

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶60

14.07.2026

¶61

¶62

to be marked as Ex A-1 to A-11 .

¶63

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.

¶64

The defendant was set ex-parte on 26.05.2022, 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. Hence, it can be concluded that applicant bank has proved its claim against defendant.

¶65

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:

¶66

: O R D E R :

¶67

16. The OA is allowed with costs,

¶68

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendant Rs.93,46,305.52p (Rupees Ninety Three Lakhs Forty Six

¶69

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶70

14.07.2026

¶71

¶72

Thousand Three Hundred and Five and Fifty Two Paise only) as follows:

¶73

¶74

(ii) A sum of Rs.3,67,091.07p due in respect of Suraksha

¶75

Loan (Account No.37282865345) repayable together with further interest @ 8.80% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realisation in full along with costs of this application.

¶76

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

¶77

¶78

(d) If the sale proceeds of the schedule 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.

¶79

(e) The applicant bank shall file the latest memo of calculation of

¶80

OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by the

¶81

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶82

¶83

14.07.2026

¶84

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.

¶85

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

¶86

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

¶87

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

¶88

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

¶89

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 14^th day of July, 2026)

¶90

ANNEXURES

¶91

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶92

AW-1: Shri. Jithin Anto, Deputy Manager of the Applicant Bank

¶93

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶94

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit
		No.
1.	Loan application for home loan submitted by the	A-1
	defendant dated 19.09.2017

¶95

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶96

¶97

14.07.2026

¶98

2.	Arrangement letter made between the applicant bank and the defendant for credit facilities availed dated 27.09.2017	A-2
3.	Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement for Housing Loan granted to public executed by the defendant dated 27.09.2017	A-3
4.	Deed of undertaking executed by the defendant dated 27.09.2017	A-4
5.	Agreement of mortgage executed by the defendant dated 27.09.2017	A-5
6.	Precondition letter executed by the defendant dated 27.09.2017	A-6
7.	Construction agreement registered as Doc.No.3817 of 2017 with SRO Kodambakkam executed by Mr. D. Santhosh in favour of Mr. S. Meganathan dated 19.09.2017 & 27.09.2017	A-7
8.	Sale deed registered as Doc.No.3818 of 2017 with SRO Kodambakkam executed by Mrs. K. Amala in favour of Mr. S. Meganathan dated 27.09.2017	A-8
9.	Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed registered as Doc.No.3933 of 2017 with SRO Kodambakkam to and in favour oof applicant bank dated 09.10.2017	A-9
10.	Statement of accounts for A/c. No.37195232060 from 26.09.2017 to 20.05.2020	A-10
11.	Statement of accounts for A/c. No.37282865345 from 06.11.2017 to 20.05.2020	A-11

¶99

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶100

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶101

:-SCHEDULE-:

¶102

All that piece and parcel of the residential flat measuring an extent of 1050 sq.ft., bearing Flat No.S-1 in 2^nd floor together with UDS land measuring an extent of 464 sq.ft., out of land measuring an extent of 2969 sq.ft., bearing Plot No.2 and as per sub division approval Plot Nos.45A and 45 B comprised in Paimash Nos. 116,117,118 and 119, T.S.No.7/2, as per Patta T.S.No.7/69, Block-2 of Puliyur Village, situated at Previously Old Door No.12A, previously New Door No.45, Thiru Nagar, 4^th Street, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026, Egmore Taluk, Chennai District and total land being bounded on the:

¶103

T.A. No. 377 of 2023

¶104

¶105

14.07.2026

¶106

North by: Ponpandi’s Land South by: Plot No.3, East by: 30 Feet Road (Thiru nagar 4^th Street) West by: Saligramam Village boundary (D.No.21/56, Bharathi Street) Admeasuring Total land

¶107

North to South on the Eastern Side: 45 feet North to South on the Western Side: 48.5 feet East to West on the Northern Side: 62 feet East to West on the Southern Side: 65 feet

¶108

Situated within the Registration District of Chennai Central and sub Registration District of Kodambakkam.

¶109

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

State Bank of India v. Meganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Meganathan

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

Union Bank of India versus Mohamed Abdullah a H

Bank of Baroda versus Skp Enterprises

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M S Sun Steels

RSNagaraj versus Dcb Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Ungal Balaji Bhavan

Indian Bank versus Abdul Khader Hassene