STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Janani on 17 September 2026

1. Mrs. D. Janani

W/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Chennai – 600 011

Also at

Mrs. D. Janani

W/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Also at

Mrs. D. Janani

W/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Emp No.002, Admin Officer

Capital Enterprises, No.21, Saraswathi Square

Perambur High Road

Chennai – 600 011

2. Miss D. Iniya

Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Minor Represented by Natural Guardian Mrs. D. Janani

D/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Chennai – 600 011

Also at

Miss D. Iniya

Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Minor Represented by Natural Guardian Mrs. D. Janani d/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

3. Master D. Kevin

Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Minor Represented by Natural Guardian Mrs. D. Janani s/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Chennai – 600 011

Also at

Master D. Kevin

Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Minor Represented by Natural Guardian Mrs. D. Janani S/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

4. Mr. P.R. Sundaram

Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

F/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Chennai – 600 011

Also at

Mr. P.R. Sundaram

Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

F/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

5. Mrs. S. Banumathi

Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

M/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

Chennai – 600 011

Also at

Mrs. S. Banumathi

Legal heir of Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

M/o Late Mr. S. Deivasigamani

…Defendants

ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY

1. This Original Application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants’ seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.59,86,062/- together with interest at the rate of 8.70% p.a. with monthly rests being the amount due under Housing Loan Facility from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

2. The case is placed before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability.

3. The objection of the Registry is as follows:- “As per loan account statement, the amount is being maintained at Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar branch, which does not fall under DRT-II jurisdiction, further defendants are also not residing in jurisdiction of DRT- II.

The loan documents were executed at RACPC Centre (now name changed as Home Loan centre) Anna Nagar and disbursed through Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar Branch. Being HLC at Anna Nagar is centralized loan sanctioning office and it is an internal arrangement of the banks.

Further, whereas counsel for applicant stated in Flag „A‟ seek for maintainability.

As per 19(1)(c) the part cause of action may not be applicable since the applicant bank is not maintained the account. The similar case has already been decided in NDN(OA) 1395/2025 dt. 09.01.2026.

Hence submitted to decide judicially whether the filing of OA is maintainable please.”

4. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is as follows:- “It is humbly submitted that the Loan has been sanctioned by the applicant bank, the Arrangement Letter and Loan agreement has been entered by the applicant bank with the borrower. The seal of the applicant bank clearly shows the pincode Chennai -40 which comes within the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

According to Section 19(c) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1992 “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises:” can make application by the bank.

Hence, the part of cause of action for this case arises at the applicant bank since the loan has been sanctioned, arrangement letter and loan agreement has been entered by the applicant bank with the defendants. Hence, this Hon‟ble Court have jurisdiction.

Kindly post this before the Hon‟ble Presiding Officer for maintainability.”

5. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and perused the records.

6. After hearing the Ld. Counsel and after perusing the records the only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the sanction of the loan and execution of the loan documents at the Anna Nagar Home Loan Centre, which is a centralized office of the Applicant-Bank, by itself constitutes a part of the cause of action under Section 19(1)(c) of the RDB Act so as to confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Tribunal?

7. Section 19(1) of the RDB Act prescribes the territorial jurisdiction of a Debts Recovery Tribunal. Among other grounds, an application can be filed where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Therefore, for invoking Section 19(1)(c), the Applicant must establish that a material part of the cause of action giving rise to the recovery claim arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

8. In the present case, admittedly, the loan account is maintained at Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar Branch. The said Branch is outside the territorial jurisdiction of DRT-II. It is also not disputed that the defendants are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The only basis pleaded by the Applicant for invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is that the loan was sanctioned and the Arrangement Letter and Loan Agreement were executed at the RACPC/Home Loan Centre at Anna Nagar. The said contention cannot be accepted. The Anna Nagar Home Loan Centre is admittedly a centralized sanctioning/processing office of the Applicant- Bank. Its involvement in sanctioning or processing the housing loan is an internal administrative arrangement of the Bank. The mere fact that the Bank has chosen to centralize its loan sanctioning or documentation functions at Anna Nagar cannot, by itself, create territorial jurisdiction in favour of DRT-II.

9. In the present case, the loan account is maintained at Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar Branch. The debt claimed in the Original Application is the amount outstanding in the said loan account. The Applicant has not shown any act of default, maintenance of the loan account, demand, non-payment, or other material event forming part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The execution of the Arrangement Letter and Loan Agreement at the centralized Home Loan Centre does not, in the facts of the present case, by itself constitute a part of the cause of action so as to confer jurisdiction upon this Tribunal. If the mere place of execution of documents at a centralized office were sufficient, a Bank could confer jurisdiction upon any Tribunal merely by locating its centralized processing or sanctioning office within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, irrespective of where the loan account is maintained and where the defendants and the substantive events relating to the debt are situated. Such an interpretation cannot be accepted.

10. The seal of the Applicant-Bank bearing Chennai-40 PIN Code also does not alter the position. The PIN Code or address appearing on the Bank's documents is not, by itself, determinative of territorial jurisdiction. What is required under Section 19(1)(c) is the existence of a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Applicant has not established such a part of the cause of action in the present case.

11. It is also relevant that the present proceedings are for recovery of the amount outstanding under the housing loan facility. The relevant loan account is maintained at Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar Branch, which is outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The defendants are also outside the jurisdiction. In the absence of any other material circumstance showing that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, this Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction merely on the ground that the loan sanctioning/documentation was carried out at a centralized office situated within the jurisdiction.

12. Further the Applicant has failed to establish that any substantive part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of DRT-II.

Consequently, Section 19(1)(c) of the RDB Act cannot be invoked merely on the basis of the sanction of the loan or execution of the loan documents at the Anna Nagar Home Loan Centre.

13. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(a) The objection raised by the Registry is sustained. This Tribunal holds that the present Original Application is not maintainable before this Tribunal for want of territorial jurisdiction.

(b) The Applicant-Bank is at liberty to present the Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction, in accordance with law.

(c) The Registry shall return the Original Application and the accompanying documents to the Applicant for presentation before the appropriate Tribunal.

Sd/-

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY)

PRESIDING OFFICER

DRT-II, CHENNAI

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 17th day of September, 2026)