BANK OF INDIA vs Jancy on 31 October 2025

1. Jancy, W/o.Late Cyriac George, Vattothu House, Meenachil P.O., Pala – 686 589, Kottayam District.

2. Reshma, D/o.Late Cyriac George, Vattothu House, Meenachil P.O., Pala – 686 589, Kottayam District.

3. Renju,

Aged about 14 years,

S/o.Late Cyriac George, Vattothu House, Meenachil P.O., Pala – 686 589, Kottayam District.

(Minor, represented by mother & guardian- 1st defendant herein)

4. Sebastian George,

S/o.George, Vattothu House,

Palakkad, Meenachil P.O., Pala – 686 589, Kottayam District.

…Defendants

This Original Application having been heard on 28.10.2025 in the presence of Advocate Sri.K.K.John for the applicant bank and the defendants being absent 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 an aggregate sum of Rs.49,58,141/- due under two term loan accounts together with future interest thereon @14% per annum with monthly rests from the 4th defendant personally and by sale of ‘A’ to ‘E’ schedule properties and also from defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally to the extent of assets inherited from late Cyriac George. 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 head office at Mumbai and one of its branches at Pala, Kottayam District.

3. One Cyriac George, predecessor-in-interest of defendants 1 to 3, being the proprietor of M/s.Surya Rubbers approached the applicant bank seeking credit facilities and the 4th defendant volunteered to guarantee the transaction. Considering their request, applicant bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.30 lakhs, another term loan of Rs.20 lakhs and a cash credit limit of Rs.100 lakhs to late Cyriac George as per sanction letter dated 18.08.2009 and the said facilities were availed by him after executing necessary security documents. The 4th defendant executed guarantee agreement guaranteeing due repayment of the outstanding loan amount. As primary security for the loans, late Cyriac George created hypothecation charge over ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties and equitable mortgage was created over ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties by late Cyriac George and the 4th defendant respectively. They acknowledged the liability under the loan accounts by executing acknowledgement of debt and security dated 20.06.2011.

4. While so, the applicant bank got information that there was some foul play in the matter of creation of mortgage.

On enquiry it was revealed that after creation of mortgage in favour of the applicant on 14.09.2009, late Cyriac George along with two others borrowed Rs.23 lakhs from Poovarani Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. on the security of mortgage of 3.64 Acres covered under settlement deed No.2340/1999 owned by the 4th defendant. On further enquiry it was revealed that the title deed deposited with the applicant bank is fabricated by the 4th defendant and the original title deed is deposited with the aforesaid Co-operative Bank. On verification of the sale deeds deposited by late Cyriac George, it is found that the said documents are also fake documents fabricated by late Cyriac George and the 4th defendant. In such premises, criminal proceedings were initiated and the Police took custody of the title deeds. Due to default in repayment, the accounts turned NPA on 31.12.2011. On the basis of the documents executed by the defendants, the applicant is entitled to recover the amount due under the loan accounts. Hence the OA was filed claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover an aggregate sum of Rs.49,58,141/- together with pendente lite and post decree interest thereon from the 4th defendant personally and by sale of ‘A’ to ‘E’ schedule properties and also from defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally to the extent of assets inherited from late Cyriac George;

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

(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

5. Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement denying the averments in the OA. It is claimed that they are in no way liable for the alleged debt of late Cyriac George and they came to know about his alleged indebtedness only when they received notices from the Tribunal. Hence the OA may be dismissed with costs to these defendants.

6. The 4th defendant filed written statement denying the execution of loan documents including the guarantee agreement. It is claimed that he never created equitable mortgage of his property as security for the cash credit facility allegedly granted to late Cyriac George. Hence the applicant is not entitled to get any relief as against him.

Proof Affidavit:

7. To establish the claim on behalf of the applicant bank, one Mr.Raveesh R., Branch Manager of the applicant has filed proof affidavit and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A9. The availing of the loans is well established from the documents placed by the applicant bank. An aggregate sum of Rs.49,58,141/- is outstanding in the loan accounts as on 25.08.2010, which is clearly established from the account statements marked as Exts.A8 and A9.

8. Despite sufficient time granted, the defendants have not filed any counter proof affidavit nor adduced any documentary evidence to substantiate their case. The defendants remained absent from the proceeding from 07.03.2014 and none appeared to address argument in this case.

9. The applicant bank filed IA No.2899/2014 seeking conditional attachment of the IA schedule properties, which are ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties to the OA. According to the applicant bank, the said properties are mortgaged to Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2015 directed the defendants to furnish security to the tune of Rs.49 lakhs or to appear and show cause as to why such security should not be furnished on 16.03.2015 and in the meantime, conditional attachment in respect of the IA schedule properties was ordered. As the defendants failed to furnish security for the required sum or to show cause why such security should not be furnished within the stipulated time, the attachment over the said properties has been ordered on 01.04.2015, subject to the first charge which the Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank has got over the said properties.

10. The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. has come out with an application bearing IA No.1575/2019 praying to adjudicate their claim and lift the conditional attachment order passed by the Tribunal on 01.04.2015. It is averred that late Cyriac George had created mortgage over 4.86 Ares and 2.02 Ares of land by depositing sale deed No.2673/1999 and sale deed No.2761/1999 and they are having first charge over the properties. Further, it is claimed that they had auctioned the above properties to one Jojo Mathew on 29.11.2018 and hence sought to lift the order of attachment passed by the Tribunal. As the claim petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting his case, IA No.1575/2019 was dismissed for default on 08.04.2024.

11. On careful evaluation of the materials, it could be seen that the applicant bank had sanctioned a term loan of Rs.30

lakhs for takeover of existing liability with Poovarani Service Co- operative Bank, another term loan of Rs.20 lakhs for completion of construction of factory building and a working capital limit of Rs.100 lakhs towards working capital requirement to late Cyriac George vide Ext.A1 sanction letter dated 18.08.2009. At the time of availing the loans, he executed the security documents marked as Exts.A2 to A4 and the 4th defendant executed Ext.A5 deed of guarantee dated 19.08.2009 to secure the loans. As primary security for the loans, the movables described in ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedules were hypothecated to the bank. The 4th defendant and late Cyriac George being the proprietor of M/s.Surya Rubbers had confirmed the balance outstanding under the two term loan accounts as on 20.06.2011 by executing Exts.A6 and A7 acknowledgement of debt and security. Admittedly, no valid mortgage was created over ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties and hence the relief sought for in the OA is confining to ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties.

12. Considering the amount advanced, interest applied, repayments effected and default committed, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendente lite and post-decree interest @14% per annum.

13. 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.49,58,141/- (Rupees forty nine lakhs fifty eight thousand one hundred and forty one only) due under two term loan accounts from the 4th defendant personally and by sale of ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties, if available and also from assets, if any, inherited by defendants 1 to 3 from late Cyriac George and by sale of the properties attached under IA No.2899/2014, subject to the first charge which the Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. has got over the said properties;

(ii) pendente lite and post-decree interest @14% per annum on the sum of Rs.49,58,141/- (Rupees forty nine lakhs fifty eight thousand one hundred and forty one only) from 24.08.2022 till realization from the 4th defendant personally and by sale of ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties, if available and also from assets, if any, inherited by defendants 1 to 3 from late Cyriac

George and by sale of the properties attached under IA No.2899/2014, subject to the first charge which the Poovarani Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. has got over the said properties;

14. ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedules to the OA and attachment schedule to IA No.2899/2014 shall be appended to this final order.

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

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

17. 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 31st day of October, 2025)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Sri.Raveesh R., Branch Manager of the applicant bank. Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 18.08.2009 Sanction letter issued by the applicant bank and duly acknowledged by the Late Cyriac George. A2 19.08.2009 Demand Promissory Note for Rs.1,50,00,000/- executed by the Late Cyriac George as Proprietor of Surya Rubbers in favour of the applicant bank. A3 19.08.2009 Agreement for Rs.1,50,00,000/- executed by the Late Cyriac George in favour of the applicant bank A4 19.08.2009 Hypothecation cum loan agreement executed by Late Cyriac George in favour of the applicant bank. A5 19.08.2009 Deed of guarantee executed by the 4th defendant. A6

20.06.2011 Acknowledgement of debt/securities executed by the late Cyriac George and 4th defendant in respect of Term Loan I. A7

20.06.2011 Acknowledgement of debt/securities executed by late Cyriac George and 4th defendant in respect of Term Loan II. A8

20.08.2012 Certified true copy of account No.851670410000001. A9

20.08.2012 Certified true copy of account No.851670410000002.

Defendants’ Exhibits – Nil

PRESIDING OFFICER

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 31st October, 2025

TA No.1099/2016 (OA No.402/2012)

Between

Bank of India, Pala Branch, Century Vee Tee Arcade, Kottaramattom, Pala, Kottayam District. …Applicant

And

Jancy, W/o.Late Cyriac George, Vattothu House, Meenachil P.O., Pala – 686 589,

Kottayam District & 3 others.

...Defendants

F I N A L O R D E R