UNION BANK OF INDIA vs SAMEER POOLAMTHARAKKAL on 4 August 2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated this the 4th day of August, 2026

TA No.428/2016 (OA No.310/2016) Between

Union Bank of India,

(Erstwhile Corporation Bank),

Guruvayoor Branch,

XIX/5/5, R.V.Trade Centre,

East Nada, Manjulal,

Thrissur Road, Guruvayoor – 680 101.

…Applicant [Applicant was substituted in place of Corporation Bank as per order dated 24.11.2023 in IA No.1989/2023] And

Sameer Poolamtharakkal,

S/o.Sulaiman,

Poolamtharakkal House, Paroor, Punnayurkulam P.O.,

Thrissur District – 679 561.

…Defendant

This Original Application having been heard on 17.07.2026 in the presence of Advocate Sri.V.A.Ajaikumar for the applicant bank and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following: F I N A L O R D E R

This Original Application has been filed under S.19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,59,623.80 due under term loan account together with future interest thereon @10.85% per annum with monthly rests plus penal interest @2% per annum from the defendant personally and his assets. Facts of the case:

2. The applicant is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its central office at Mumbai and a branch among other places at Guruvayoor.

3. The defendant submitted an application for a loan of Rs.31 lakhs for the purpose of purchasing a brand-new Ashok Leyland luxury tourist bus and its body building works and accessories. Considering his request, erstwhile Corporation Bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.31 lakhs on 28.03.2013. The defendant executed necessary security documents in favour of the bank. The defendant purchased the bus bearing registration No.KL-46-H-6066 by utilizing the loan amount and hypothecated the said vehicle to secure the loan. Since the repayment was defaulted, the bank initiated recovery proceeding by issuing demand notice dated 05.06.2014 under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding repayment of the outstanding dues. As the defendant failed to clear the liability, the bank took possession of the vehicle and thereafter put the same for public action on 25.03.2015 fixing the reserve price at Rs.19 lakhs but the sale did not fructify for want of bidders. At that time, one Sethunath made an offer to purchase the vehicle and the bank sold the hypothecated vehicle by private sale for Rs.19 lakhs on 25.03.2015. Thereafter, a letter was sent to the defendant intimating the sale of the vehicle and requested to pay the balance amount due under the loan account. As he did not respond to such request, the applicant was constrained to file the OA claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover a sum of Rs.11,59,623.80 together with pendente lite and post-decree interest thereon from the defendant personally and his assets;

(ii) To recover the costs, charges and expenses from the defendant;

(iii) To issue Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer with a direction to recover the amount and pay it to the applicant bank. Written statement

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments and contended inter alia that the bank had granted loan to him but without understanding the terms and conditions of the loan, he signed the papers as directed by the applicant. It is true that the bank had disbursed the loan amount to the dealers through his account. The defendant had repaid Rs.10 lakhs till 14.12.2013. The bank had taken possession of the vehicle but no public auction was conducted. They had not issued any sale notice to the defendant. After sale of the vehicle, the bank adjusted the sale proceeds towards the loan account and thereafter no intimation was given regarding the balance amount due in the loan account. Even after adjustment of the sale proceeds, the applicant is claiming huge amount by applying exorbitant rate of interest in the account. He is not liable to pay such claim of the applicant and the OA may be dismissed with costs. Proof Affidavit:

5. In order to establish the claim on behalf of the applicant bank, one Mr.Manoj V.N., Branch Manager has filed proof affidavit and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A23. The availing of the loan is well established from the documents placed by the applicant bank.

6. The defendant filed counter proof affidavit claiming that on submission of the loan application, the bank sanctioned the full loan amount without looking into his repayment capacity. He being an illiterate person is unable to read and write English and he had signed the documents as per the direction of the applicant bank without knowing the contents of the documents. The OA is filed by the bank without any bonafide and hence the same may be dismissed.

7. Heard submissions of the applicant bank. The defendant remained absent from the proceeding from 27.09.2018.

8. The sole issue arises for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to get the relief as claimed in this case?

9. Admittedly, the defendant availed the subject loan from the bank and the vehicle purchased out of the loan amount was hypothecated to the bank. It is also the admitted fact that due to default in repayment, the bank sold the vehicle and adjusted the sale proceeds into the loan account. The letter marked Ext.A20 would show that after sale of the hypothecated vehicle, the defendant was informed about the balance amount payable as on 31.12.2015 but he did not repay the amount. The subject loan was sanctioned by the applicant taking into account the credit worthiness of the defendant and he had also agreed to repay the loan amount together with interest in 81 EMIs of

Rs.55,122/- by executing the agreement for term loan dated 28.03.2013 marked Ext.A4. The claim of the defendant that he, being an illiterate person, signed the documents without understanding the terms and conditions of the loan is unsustainable for the reason that in all the loan documents, he put his signatures in English and no claim was made at the time of execution that he did not understand the contents of such documents. The contention regarding non-service of sale notice issued under the provision of the SARFAESI Act cannot be adjudicated in an application filed under S.19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

10. The documents marked as Exts.A1 to A23 would establish the claim made by the applicant bank in this case. An amount of Rs.11,59,623.80 is outstanding in the loan account as on 29.02.2016, which is clearly established from the account statement marked as Ext.A21 and the applicant is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant. The issue is answered in favour of the applicant.

11. Considering the amount advanced, interest applied, repayments effected and default committed and also substantial recovery effected by sale of the secured asset, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendente lite and post decree interest @9% per annum (rate of interest applicable at the time of institution of the OA is 9.65% per annum vide Ext.A23), which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

12. The applicant bank, therefore, is entitled to get a final order on the following lines: In the result, the applicant bank is given a final order allowing it to recover:

(i) the sum of Rs.11,59,623.80 (Rupees eleven lakhs fifty nine thousand six hundred and twenty three and Paise eighty only) due under the term loan account from the defendant personally;

(ii) pendente lite and post-decree interest @9% per annum on the sum of Rs.11,59,623.80 (Rupees eleven lakhs fifty nine thousand six hundred and twenty three and Paise eighty only) from 22.03.2016 till realization from the defendant personally; and

(iii) costs and expenses borne by it for realization of the loan from the defendant.

13. The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

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

15. Communicate copy of this order to both parties as provided in R.16 r/w R.2(c) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 4th day of August, 2026)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Sri.Manoj V.N., Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 18.03.2013 Loan application submitted by the defendant. A2 … Credit sanction intimation issued by the bank. A3 28.03.2013 Letter of undertaking/declaration executed by the defendant. A4 28.03.2013 Agreement for term loan executed by the defendant. A5 28.03.2013 Agreement for hypothecation of vehicle executed by the defendant. A6

… Copy of certificate of registration in respect of the hypothecated vehicle. A7

13.03.2013 Copy of invoice issued by T V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited. A8

28.03.2013 Letter of undertaking and declaration executed by the defendant. A9

28.03.2013 Letter issued to T V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited by the bank. A10 06.03.2013 Quotation issued by S.M.Kannappa Automobiles (P) Ltd. A11 16.04.2013 Letter issued by the bank to S.M.Kannappa Automobiles (P) Ltd. A12 16.04.2013 Receipt issued by S.M.Kannappa Automobiles (P) Ltd. acknowledging the receipt of Rs.8 lakhs. A13 15.03.2013 Quotation issued by Varma’s Agencies to the defendant. A14 04.06.2013 Receipt for Rs.2,97,400/- issued by Varma’s Agencies.

A15 27.05.2014 Copy of notice issued to the defendant calling upon him to repay the outstanding dues. A16 05.06.2014 Copy of notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act issued to the defendant. A17 13.03.2015 Copy of auction notice issued by the bank. A18 25.03.2015 Minutes of proceeding of the auction of vehicle. A19 26.03.2015 Copy of letter issued to the Branch Manager of the bank by the Chief Manager. A20 31.12.2015 Copy of letter issued to the defendant showing the debit balance in the loan account. A21 … Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the term loan. A22 … Statement showing the penal interest charged in the loan account. A23 … Certificate showing the rate of interest applied in Ext.A21 account from time to time.

Defendant’s Exhibits – Nil

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 4th August, 2026

TA No.428/2016 (OA NO.310/2016)

Between

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corpora tion Bank), Guruvayoor Branch, XIX/5/5, R.V.Trade Centre, East Nada, Manjulal, Thrissur Road, Guruvayoor. …Applicant

And

Sameer Poolamtharakkal, S/o.Sulaiman, Poolamtharakkal House, Paroor, Punnayurkulam P.O., Thrissur District.

…Defendant

F I N A L O R D E R