STATE BANK OF INDIA vs SREEKUMAR THARAVANAT on 10 October 2017

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, KERALA AT

ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 10th day of October, 2017

Present: S.V.Gowramma, B.A., LL.B

Between

State Bank of India,

Irinjalakuda Branch,

Represented by its Chief Manager,

P.B.No.32, Main Road,

Irinjalakuda, Thrissur District-680 121. …Applicant [M/s. Easwar & Mani, Counsels for the Applicant]

And

1.

Sreekumar Tharavanat,

S/o.Subramanian Vakkil,

Ambattu House, P.O.Peruvallur,

Penakam, Puvathur (via), Thrissur.

2.

Geetha Sreekumar,

W/o.Sreekumar,

Ambattu House, P.O.Peruvallur,

Penakam, Puvathur, Thrissur. …Defendants

F I N A L O R D E R

This Original Application has been filed on 12.09.2013, under S.13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.19,64,345/- under Housing Loan account with interest @10% per annum with monthly rests from the defendants jointly and severally.

2.

The case of the applicant bank is that defendants applied for a housing loan vide application dated 06.01.2009. Considering the request of the defendant, the applicant sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.27,12,000/- to the 1st defendant vide arrangement letter dated

20.01.2009. As a security for the housing loan the defendants executed a memorandum of loan agreement dated 20.01.2009. The credit facility is further secured by mortgage of property having extent of 5 cents in Sy.No.853/2014 of Manavalassery Village, Mukundappuram Taluk covered by Document No.145/2009.

3.

It is the case of the applicant that the operation of the account was irregular and hence the account was classified as nonperforming asset. Thereafter the applicant has initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT by issuing demand notice dated 01.12.2009 calling upon the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.29,41,401.89 with future interest. As the defendants failed to pay the amount mentioned in the demand notice, applicant issued possession notice dated 04.05.2010. Thereafter applicant moved before the Hon’ble CJM Court, Thrissur by preferring Crl.M.P.No.4078/2010 and the Hon’ble CJM Court, ordered to take vacant possession of the land. The defendants surrendered the vacant possession of the land on 08.01.2011. In the meanwhile the property was proclaimed to be sold in public auction on 26.04.2011. Accordingly, the property was sold for a sum of Rs.23,26,000/- and the sale proceeds received by the applicant bank is credited to the loan account of the defendants.

4.

After the sale of the immovable secured asset under SARFAESI proceedings and after crediting the sale consideration, still there is a balance amount of Rs.19,48,111/- is due in the loan account as on 30.06.2013. Therefore, applicant has issued a notice on 18.07.2013 calling the defendants to pay the aforesaid amount. Even

after the issuance of notice, the defendants failed to pay the balance outstanding amount. As per the statement of account maintained with the applicant bank, an amount of Rs.19,64,345/- is due from the defendants as on 31.07.2013.

5.

The defendants were duly served with summons and on 15.01.2014 Adv.Biju Joseph appeared before this tribunal and sought time to file Vakalath and written statement. However, no vakalat is filed for the defendants. Subsequently they were not represented and thus they were declared exparte on 15.10.2014.

6.

The evidence on the side of the applicant bank consists of the proof affidavit of its Chief Manager, AW1 and Exhibits A1 to A6 are marked on the side of applicant and closed their side of evidence.

7.

Heard arguments of the applicant bank and perused the records of the case. The following points arise for my consideration:

(i)

Whether the applicant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the OA?

(ii)

What order?

My findings on the above points are as follows:- Point No.(i):

In the affirmative

Point No.(ii):

As per final order.

Reasons:-

8.

The evidence of the applicant bank by way of proof affidavit its Chief Manager AW1, reiterates the facts pleaded in the OA and the

affidavit is corroborated by the above referred Exhibits A1 to A6 which clearly establishes the case of the applicant bank to allow the present OA. Added to this, the absence of defendants in spite of service of summons appears to be intentional without any bonofide reasons and it appears that they remained absent as they admitted the entire case of the applicant as sought for in the present OA.

9.

In view of the above, the present OA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the applicant bank. Having regard to the amount advanced, the interest applied, the conduct and operations in the account and the default committed, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get a final order on the following lines:-