FEDERAL BANK vs S. BALASUBRAMONIAN on 2 May 2025

1. S.Balasubramonian,

S/o.Sadagopala Pillai,

Proprietor, Karumari Agencies,

315, Sankar Nagar,

Kaimanam P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 040.

2. Appu Nadar,

S/o.Ponnu Nadar,

Mulluvila, Thundathattu Veedu,

Venniyoor, Venganoor P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 523.

3. Mohanan Nair,

S/o.Kumara Pillai,

Ambika Vilasom Veedu,

Marugil Ooruttambalam P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 507.

4. Ambika Kumari,

W/o.Mohanan Nair,

Ambika Vilasom Veedu,

Marugil Ooruttambalam P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 507. …Defendants

This TA (OA) having been heard on 16.04.2025 in the presence of Advocates M/s.K.P.Sujesh Kumar and Keerthi K.Narayan for the applicant bank, Advocate Sri.V.K.Peer Mohamed Khan for the 2nd defendant, defendants 1, 3 and 4 being exparte, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:- F I N A L O R D E R

This is an application filed under S.31A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by the applicant bank, who is the decree holder in OS No.225/2000, for issuance of Recovery Certificate in terms of the decree dated 31.10.2002 for recovery of the amount due thereunder.

2. The applicant bank had filed OS No.225/2000 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for recovery of amount due under the loan account and obtained decree dated 31.10.2002 allowing it to recover the sum of Rs.5,96,363/- together with interest @19.38% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 24.05.2000 till realization and also its costs from the defendants and their assets and also by sale of the decree schedule properties. According to the applicant bank, four items of properties i.e., schedules 1 to IV mentioned in the plaint were released to defendants Nos.3 and 4 upon payment of Rs.4 lakhs. Thereafter, the defendants did not pay any amount due under the decree and it is entitled to get the sum of Rs.5,96,363/-, the principal sum adjudged as due as on 24.05.2000 (the date of suit), Rs.12,21,242/- as the interest thereon @19.38% per annum from 24.05.2000 to 21.10.2012 and Rs.51,465/- as the costs awarded; and after excluding the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- remitted by the defendants, a sum of Rs.14,69,070/- is due under the decree as on 21.10.2012. The prayer is to issue Recovery Certificate for recovery of the said amount of Rs.14,69,070/- in terms of the decree dated 31.10.2002 in OS No.225/2000.

3. All the defendants were duly served with summons. The defendants 1 and 4 neither appeared nor were they represented. The 3rd defendant appeared in person and sought time for filing objection but he did not file the same despite time granted and thereafter remained absent from the proceeding. Hence defendants 1, 3 and 4 were set exparte on 19.03.2013.

4. The 2nd defendant filed objection contending inter alia that the 2nd defendant and his property are not at all liable for the alleged dues of the applicant bank. The applicant had fraudulently obtained the decree from the Hon'ble Sub-Court, Thiruvananthapuram which is non est in law. The amount shown as due is not correct and hence the OA may be dismissed with costs.

5. As regards the contentions raised by the 2nd defendant is concerned, this Tribunal, being an executing court, cannot go beyond the decree and it is only authorized to pass order in issuing Recovery Certificate as per S.31A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Further, the materials on record would show that the 2nd defendant was duly represented by his Advocate in the Sub-Court but he did not file any written statement therein disputing the claim made by the applicant bank. Mere allegations of the 2nd defendant after the lapse of 13 years from the date of decree is untenable and are only to be rejected.

6. S.31A was incorporated by way of amendment made to the Act as per Act 1 of 2000, which came into force on 17.01.2000, which deals with issuance of Recovery Certificate in respect of decrees for recovery of debt passed by any court prior to the commencement of Act 1 of 2000. When any decree passed by a civil court after introduction of S.31A in the statute, which remained unexecuted and the decreetal debt grew after calculating the interest beyond Rs.10 lakhs (Rs.20 lakhs w.e.f. 01.07.2019), can be executed by the Tribunal not by the civil court in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case titled V.D.Mathew v. State Bank of Travancore, reported in 2008 (2) D.R.T.C 695 (Kerala) wherein it was held that “If that be so, after the decree was passed, the debt under it remains a decree debt and when the outstanding under that decree grew to be beyond Rupees Ten Lakhs, it was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as cause of action, against the debtor.” Here in this case at the time of passing the decree by the Sub-Court the decreetal amount was Rs.5,96,363/-. At the time of initiation of this proceeding, the total recoverable amount as on 21.10.2012 was Rs.14,69,070/-, which is inclusive of accrued interest and costs. The ratio decided by the Hon'ble High Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and this proceeding is maintainable in this forum and the Tribunal is empowered to issue Recovery Certificate for recovery of amount due under the award (i.e., the decree passed on or after 17.01.2000) which grew beyond the statutory limit of Rs.10 lakhs. Any other interpretation would make

S.31A of the Act redundant and a decree holder bank, after obtaining a decree after the commencement of Act 1 of 2000 for recovery of amount with interest which has exceeded of Rs.10 lakhs, would be unable to approach for recovery of such amount either before the Tribunal or the civil court which is not the intention of legislature. The Tribunal, therefore, is required to issue Recovery Certificate for recovery of the amount due under the award.

7. In view of the above discussion, the applicant bank is entitled to get a final order directing to issue Recovery Certificate on the following lines: In the result, it is ordered to issue Recovery Certificate in terms of the decree dated 31.10.2002 in OS No.225/2000 of the Sub-Court, Thiruvananthapuram for recovery and payment to the applicant bank the sum of Rs.14,69,070/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs sixty nine thousand and seventy only) with further interest on the sum of Rs.5,96,363/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety six thousand three hundred and sixty three only) @19.38% per annum from 22.10.2012 till realization and also the costs of the applicant bank in this proceeding from the defendants and their assets and by sale of decree schedule-V property.

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

9. 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 2nd day of May, 2025)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 2nd May, 2025

TA No.68/2016 (OA No.449/2012)

Between

The Federal Bank Ltd., Reg. Office: Aluva, Branch: Thiruvananthapuram-Statue, Thiruvananthapuram District. Asset Recovery Branch at: Marine Drive, Ernakulam – 682 031. …Applicant

And

S.Balasubramonian, S/o.Sadagopala Pillai, Proprietor, Karumari Agencies, 315, Sankar Nagar, Kaimanam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 040 & 3 others. …Defendants

F I N A L O R D E R