INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK vs SMT. O.JAYALAKSHMI DEVI on 30 April 2025

ORDER

1. The Application was originally filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bangalore u/s. 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and numbered as OA No.1076/2016, seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 29,06,577/- due under the loan facility availed by the defendant.

2. Subsequently, owing to bifurcation of jurisdiction vide Government of India Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2017, the Application (OA) was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1397/2017.

3. The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs.28,33,804/- was availed by defendant for the purchase of apartment scheduled to the OA. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule property.

4. The Applicant further contends that, despite availing the credit facility by execution necessary loan documents, obliging to pay back the amount, the defendant failed to comply with the same even after the revival of the facility on 1.6.2015 and all the efforts of the Applicant 3 TA 1397/2017

to make the defendants pay back the amount including issuance of demand notice on 24.11.2015 failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

5. Summons was taken out and the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. The defendant admits the availment of the credit facility, execution of necessary documents and creation of mortgage. The only contention put forth in the written statement is that the bank had levied exorbitant interest and not in accordance with the loan agreement. As the defendant failed to enter appearance thereafter, the defendant was called absent and set ex parte on 29.7.2024.

6. The Applicant let-in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conformity with pleading and got marked Ext A3 to A14. The Defendant failed to contest the case and no defense evidence was adduced.

7. Heard. The following issues arise for consideration: I. Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim? II. What orders are to be passed? Both these issues are decided together.

4 TA 1397/2017

8. The Applicant’s evidence remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Even though the defendant filed a written statement, failed to adduce defense evidence and the defendant was called absent and set ex parte subsequently. Even in the written statement, the defendant is not disputing the sanction and disbursement of the loan, execution of loan documents and the mortgage of scheduled property to secure the loan facility availed. Hence the Applicant is entitled to the TA claim. The TA claim is made within the limitation.

9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is not interfering with the rate of interest as claimed by the applicant. However, monthly rest is not allowed taking into consideration that the facility is a Housing Loan.

10. In the result, i. TA 1397 of 2017 is allowed; ii. Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 29,06,577/- with pendente lite and future interest @11.70% p.a. from the date of filing of the OA/TA till 5 TA 1397/2017

realization from the Defendant after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received, if any, during the pendency of the OA/TA; iii. The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendant is liable personally and her other assets are liable to be proceeded against; iv. A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms; v. Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. vi. The schedule to the TA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate. vii. Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final order.

6 TA 1397/2017

11. Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned in terms of Sec.19(21)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993. (Dictated to my PS directly on the Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of April 2025)

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

Applicant’s Witness AW1 – Shri Vittal Shenoy-Senior Manager of Applicant bank. Applicant’s Exhibits

1. A3- Credit sanction advice dated 9.6.2012

2. A4-Promissory Note Dated 9.6.2012

3. A5-Letter of installment dated 9.6.2012

4. A6- Term loan agreement dated 9.6.2012

5. A7- Consent cum authorization dated 9.6.2012

6. A8-Letter confirming the deposit of title deeds dated 12.6.2012

7. A9- Regd. Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 11.6.2012

8. A10- Letter of revival dated 1.6.2015

9. A11- Notice dated 24.11.2015

10. A12- Postal acknowledgment of the notice

11. A13- Returned envelope

12. A14- Statement of account.

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)