Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Mr. Y. Ruban Doss

DRT12 May 2026TA/556/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-I Chennai allowed an original application by Punjab National Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a home loan defaulting borrower. The Tribunal confirmed the loan liability and sanctioned recovery including interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.1,08,77,568/- plus 8% annual simple interest; defendant held personally liable; costs awarded to bank.

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Y. Ruban Doss — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 12^th day of May, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.556 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.295 of 2022 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.556 of 2022)

¶6

Punjab National Bank Circle SASTRA Centre, Chennai South PNB Towers, 46-49, Mezzanine Floor Royapettah High Road, Royapettah Chennai – 600 014 Rep. by its Chief Manager …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Y. Ruban Doss S/o Mr. Yessudas No.42, Bajanai Koil Street Mettu Arumbakkam, Nagavedu Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District – 600 034

¶9

… Defendant

¶10

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶11

Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s Suresh Law Associates Defendant ex-parte on 30.10.2023

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,08,77,568/- together with interest at the rate of 8.65% p.a. with

¶14

monthly rests from the date of the application till the date of realisation

¶15

¶16

along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶17

The subject matter of the case is the Home loan availed by the defendant from the Applicant Bank.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan for the purpose of purchasing the schedule mentioned property the applicant vide its sanction dated 1.6.2017 sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.97,20,000/-. The defendant executed the Agreement for Housing loan on 12.06.2017 and deposited the title deeds of the property with the applicant with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 12.6.2017 registered as Doc. No.1410 of 2017, SRO, T. Nagar.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant was highly irregular in repayment and failed to regularize the loan account despite repeated demands and hence the loan account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2021. It is further stated that as the defendant did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues, the applicant issued legal notice on 03.04.2021 requesting the defendant to clear the outstanding dues but in vain. Hence the present application is filed for recovery of its dues.

¶20

¶21

Summons was taken out to the defendant and served. As the defendant was continuously absent and as there was no representation for the defendant on 30.10.2023, he set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 10 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-10 on 04.04.2024. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 20.03.2026 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶22

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

These issues are considered together.

¶26

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

¶27

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-10 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the

¶28

¶29

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 defendant. 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 defendant. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

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: -

¶33

(a) TA No.556 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶34

¶35

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.1,08,77,568/- with further interest @8% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendant 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 defendant.

¶36

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

¶37

(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.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 12^th day of May, 2026)

¶43

¶44

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶45

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.	Nil	Loan application by defendant	A-1
2.	01.06.2017	Sanction letter issued by the applicant bank	A-2
3.	12.06.2017	Power of Attorney	A-3
4.	12.06.2017	Agreement of housing loan	A-4
5.	12.06.2017	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds by defendant – Doc. No.1410/2017, SRO, T. Nagar	A-5
6.	13.05.2017	Sale Agreement entered between Sanjay Kumar Surana and Y. Ruban Doss	A-6
7.	13.05.2017	Construction Agreement entered between Sanjay Kumar Surana and Y. Ruban Doss	A-7
8.	12.06.2017	Sale deed executed by Sanjay Kumar Suarana in favour of Y. Ruban Doss (Doc. No.1409/2017)	A-8
9.	03.04.2021	Recall notice and returned cover	A-9
10.	12.06.2017 to 31.1.2022	Statement of Accounts along with Certificate under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act	A-10

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶50

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTIES

¶51

All the piece and parcel of vacant land admeasurng an extent of 2249 Sq. ft. as per Document and 2212 Sq. ft. as per patta situated at Door No.12, Gandhi Street, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033, comprised in T.S. No.130, 131, 114/2 & 117/2, Block No.12 of Mambalam Village, together with building standing thereupon which includes 5 feet common passage leading from Gandhi Street, situated within Registration District of south Chennai and Sub Registrar District of T. Nagar

¶52

And bounded on the:

¶53

North by: Property belonging to Mr. Natarajan and 5^th passage leading to Gandhi Street, South by: Property belonging to Mr. Vasu and Mrs. Logammal, East by: Property belonging to Mr. Arumugam.

¶54

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY

¶55

473 Square feet undivided interest or share of land in the aforesaid schedule ‘A’ property.

¶56

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PROPERTY

¶57

Flat designated G2 measuring 1200 square feet super built up area, plinth area 905 square feet on the Ground Floor on the Schedule ‘A’ property with 473 square feet of UDS of land in Schedule ‘A’ property

¶58

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

¶59

Punjab National Bank v. Mr. Y. Ruban Doss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Mr. Y. Ruban Doss

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

S Rajashankar versus State Bank of India

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. v. Lakshmanan

K Rajesh versus The Uco Bank

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. K. Karupannaraja

Mrs Sujatha Rajkumar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

S Natarajan versus State Bank of India