Allowed

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Subathira

DRT16 Mar 2026TA/709/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai allowed the Original Application filed by M/s. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of a non-performing mortgage loan. The court found the defendant borrowers in chronic default, dismissed their absence, and ordered joint and several recovery of dues plus interest, with liberty to sell mortgaged and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.3,65,77,762.30 plus 10% p.a. interest and costs; liberty to sell schedule property and personal assets for balance dues.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Subathira — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

TA No.709/2023 1

¶2

16.03.2026

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2026

¶5

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶6

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 709 of 2023

¶7

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 83/2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.709 of 2023)

¶8

M/s. PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD., Acting in its capacity as Trustee of Pegasus Group One Trust – XXXVII, Registered office at No. 55 – 56, 5th Floor, Free Press House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Having Branch Office at No.3F, 3rd Floor, Kasthuri Apartments, JP Avenue, 6th Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Rep. by its Senior Manager

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Ms. M. SUBATHIRA, D/o Mr. Mohan Proprietor of M/s. SSS EXPORTS, Plot No.21, 22, 23, 24, 1st Cross, West Street, S.P. Residency Rajakuppam Road, Iyyanambakkam, Chennai – 600 095

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Ms. M. SUBATHIRA, D/o Mr. Mohan Proprietor of M/s. SSS EXPORTS, New No.216, Old No.226, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Ms. M. SUBATHIRA, D/o Mr. Mohan Proprietor of M/s. SSS EXPORTS, No.29, 2nd Street, Venkadesan Nagar, Drivers Colony, Amudurmedu, Tiruvallur – 600 072

¶16

TA No.709/2023 2

¶17

16.03.2026

¶18

Mrs. M. KOMALA, W/o Mr. Mohan No.29, 2nd Street, Venkadesan Nagar, Drivers Colony, Amudurmedu, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 072 ….Defendants

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Ramalingam & Associates

¶21

Defendants 1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 21.09.2022

¶22

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶23

This Original Application is filed on 25.11.2019 by the Applicant Institution under Section 19 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rule, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.3,65,77,762.30p (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Five Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Two and Thirty Paise only) as on 22.11.2019 due in respect of Mortgage Loan (A/c No.TBF00029N) repayable together with further interest at the rate of 10.00% p.a. with monthly rests, from the date of the above application till the date of realization in full, for sale of schedule mentioned property and for costs of this OA.

¶24

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.83 of 2020, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 30.06.2023, OA No.83 of 2020 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.709 of 2023.

¶25

Brief Facts of the case:

¶26

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

¶27

TA No.709/2023 3

¶28

16.03.2026

¶29

limitation as prescribed under Section 19 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 that the first Defendant is the proprietor of M/s. SSS Exports and the Second Defendant is the Co-borrower had availed financial facilities from M/s Indusind Bank and committed default in repayment. The Applicant, herein got assigned the debt due from the said borrower/co-borrower, along with the underlying securities from M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited under a Supplement Assignment of Debt Agreement dated 18.09.2019, which was registered as document No. 19941 of 2019, on the file of the District Registrar, Puducherry. As such the Applicant is entitled to seek for the recovery of the amounts due from the defendants herein, including the enforcement of the secured asset, as a financial institution under Sec. 2 (h) (1a) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “RDB Act”).

¶31

It is submitted by the applicant bank that considering the request made by the first Defendant, the Assignor of the Applicant had sanctioned a Mortgage loan of Rs.3,25,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only) to the first Defendant, vide their Sanction Letter dated 17.04.2018. In consideration thereof and to secure the said facility, the first Defendant as the borrower and the second defendant as the coborrower had executed the following documents in favour of the Applicant:

¶32

(i) Agreement for secured loan dated 27.04.2018 executed by both

¶33

TA No.709/2023 4

¶34

16.03.2026

¶35

the defendants in favour of the Assignor of the Applicant.

¶36

(ii) Demand Promissory Note dated 27.04.2019 executed by the Defendants in favour of the Assignor of the Applicant, agreeing to repay the loan amount of Rs.3,25,00,000/- with compound interest at the rate of 10.00% per annum with monthly rest.

¶37

(iii) Letter of continuity dated 27.04.2018 executed by the defendants in favour of the Assignor of the applicant.

¶38

(iv) Letter of General lien and set off dated 27.04.2018, executed by the defendants in favour of the assignor of the applicant.

¶39

The applicant further submits that to secure the said facility the 1^st Defendant had created mortgage over the schedule mentioned immovable property owned by her and had executed Memorandum of deposit of title Deeds dated 14.05.2018, confirming the creation of mortgage with the Assignor Bank and the same was registered as document No. 8704 of 2018, on the file of the District Registrar of Puducherry.

¶40

It is submitted by the applicant bank that the Defendants agreed to repay the above said loan with interest at the rate of 10.00% p.a. with monthly rest in 120 equated monthly installments as Rs.4,29,490/- per month to the assignor of the applicant. The defendants agreed to pay penal interest at the rate of 2% per annum in case of default and the noncompliance of any of the sanction stipulations.

¶41

The Applicant Bank submits that in consideration of the Applicant

¶42

TA No.709/2023 5

¶43

16.03.2026

¶44

granting the aforesaid loan facilities, the 1^st Defendant had specifically agreed in principle to comply with the terms and conditions as stated in the aforesaid Agreement. Subsequent to the availing of the aforesaid credit facility, the Defendants have not repaid the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan Agreement and thus committed chronic default in repaying the loan amount. Due to irregular repayments, the account of the first defendant was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) as on 07.12.2018 by the assignor of the applicant.

¶45

The Applicant, through its Authorised Officer, had issued notice on 04.02.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Defendants and even after the issuance of the demand notice, the Defendant has not repaid the outstanding loan amount. The Applicant submits that the Defendants are due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,65,77,762.30p as on 22.11.2019 together with further interest at the rate of 10.00% p.a. with monthly rests, from the date of the above application till the date of realization in full. As defendants did not come forward to repay the dues, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendants.

¶46

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the Defendants 1 and 2 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which returned as “Left”. The Applicant had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 21.09.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the

¶47

TA No.709/2023 6

¶48

16.03.2026

¶49

defendants. Hence, Defendants 1 and 2 were placed ex-parte on 21.09.2022.

¶50

Heard the submissions of Applicant and perused the record s.

¶51

To prove the case of the Applicant Sh. Shankar, Authorised Signatory 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

¶52

A-15.

¶53

A careful examination of the pleadings in the Proof Affidavit and documents Exhibits A-1 to A-15 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 filed Statement of Accounts duly certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, evidencing the amount claimed against defendants.

¶54

The defendants were set ex-parte on 21.09.2022 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 has proved its claim against defendants.

¶55

With regard to the amount advanced, the interest applied, the conduct

¶56

TA No.709/2023 7

¶57

16.03.2026

¶58

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:

¶59

: O R D E R :

¶60

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶61

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants jointly and severally, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.3,65,77,762.30p (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Five Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Two and Thirty Paise only) as on 22.11.2019 due in respect of Mortgage Loan (A/c No.TBF00029N) repayable together with further interest at the rate of 10.00% p.a. with monthly rests, from the date of the application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this OA.

¶62

(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 property morefully detailed in the OA schedule.

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

TA No.709/2023 8

¶66

16.03.2026

¶67

properties or assets owned by the Defendants.

¶68

(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.

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

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

¶73

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 16^th day of March, 2026)

¶74

ANNEXURES

¶75

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶76

AW-1: Sh. Shankar, Authorised Signatory representing the Applicant institution.

¶77

TA No.709/2023 9

¶78

16.03.2026

¶79

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶80

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	28.12.2012 -Copy of the application submitted by first defendant to the second defendant.	A-1
2.	08.08.2013 -Loan application submitted by first defendant to the second defendant.	A-2
3.	30.09.2013 -Agreement for sale of house/flat executed between the second and first defendant	A-3
4.	07.11.2013–Arrangement letter	A-4
5.	07.11.2013–Memorandum of Loan Agreement	A-5
6.	07.11.2013–Agreement to Mortgage	A-6
7.	16.07.2016-Demand Letter	A-7
8.	24.09.2013 - “A” Certificate issued by the second defendant to Applicant Bank.	A-8
9.	24.09.2013 - “A” Certificate issued by the second defendant to Applicant Bank	A-9
10.	31.03.2017 – Letter from second defendant regarding non issuance of sale deed to the first defendant.	A-10
11.	21.10.2017 – Letter to the first defendant regarding migration of Account to Asset recovery Management Branch.	A-11
12.	18.07.2018 – Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act.	A-12
	24.09.2018–Statement of Accounts.	A-13

¶81

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶82

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶83

-:SCHEDULE:-

¶84

All the piece and parcel of land and building situated at Kancheepuram District, Sholinganallur Taluk, Sholinganallur Village, Flat comprised in S.No.344 Part, approved by CMDA vide its approved No.B/Spl.Bldg/217/A to G/2012 dated 30.05.2012, MIG Flat bearing No.31/16 in the fourth Floor having a plinth area of 778 sq.ft. together with 5.3 Sq.ft., undivided share of land in the sanctioned plan of Sholinganallur,

¶85

TA No.709/2023 10

¶86

16.03.2026

¶87

Phase-III Scheme (208 MIG Flats) under Self Financing Scheme and bounded on the:

¶88

North by : Flat No. 31/15

¶89

South by : 12.0 M Road,

¶90

East by : 6.0 M wide Access way

¶91

West by : Flat No. 31/13

¶92

And situated within the Registration District of Chennai South and Sub Registration District of Neelangarai.

¶93

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

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Subathira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Subathira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karur Vysya Bank versus Zulaikha Motors PvtLtd

P Sivaramakrishnan versus Union Bank of India

Bank of India versus M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi

Rizwan versus Dcb Bank Limited

M s Paterson Cancer Center P Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Premalatha s versus Repco Home Finance Limited