BANK OF MAHARASHTRA vs Sri.S.B.Kishore Rao on 29 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

1. The present application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru on 17.07.2015 under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 and numbered as OA No. 2138/2015 to recover a sum of Rs. 25,57,373/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the application till realization from the defendants. Subsequently, the application was transferred from Debts Recovery Tribunal- I to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.

695/2017.

2. It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant No.1 & 2 as borrowers availed a housing loan of Rs. 19.00 Lakhs for the purchase of the house for which the defendant No.3 stood as guarantor

3. It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with demand promissory note, deed of guarantee and memorandum of record of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the applicant bank.

4. It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in compliance of the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

5. In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this TA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

6. Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on

23.09.2024.

7. The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the TA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-12 and got the same marked in evidence.

8. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

9. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim as against the defendants? ii) What order are to be passed?

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

10. The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove the availment of credit facilities as stated in the TA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

11. Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence this Tribunal is of the view that TA is liable to be allowed.

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are availed by defendant for Housing purpose and interest is claimed at a lower rate, this Tribunal in view of the rate of interest as claimed need not be reduced. However as the TA Claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate and also by applying default interest, the prayer for monthly rest and future penal interest are declined.

13. In the result, TA.No.695/2017, stands allowed,

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 25,57,373/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Three Only) with further interest @ 9.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing TA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the TA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and other assets of the defendants are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

v) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with this Final Order.

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. [Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29th Day of May, 2025]. Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1: Nishit Chandra S/o Marianus Tigga, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank. Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

Exhibit Nos. Particulars of Documents A1 Applicant Evidence A2 List of Documents. A3 Sanction letter dated 21.11.2006 A4 Housing loan agreement dated 22.11.2006 A5 Request letter 22.11.2006 A6 Receipt date 22.11.2006 A7 Demand promissory note dated 22.11.2006 A8 Guarantee deed dated 21.11.2006 A9 Mortgagors declaration dated 21.11.2006 A10 Memorandum of record dated 27.11.2006 A11 Letter dated 15.09.2010 A12 Extract of the statement of accounts

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER