UNION BANK OF INDIA vs V.S. PRASANNA on 30 June 2025

: - O R D E R - :

1. The Application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru on 26.11.2013 Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and numbered as OA No. 993/2014, seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 52,03,187/- (Rupees fifty-two lakh three thousand one hundred eighty-seven only). Subsequently, owing to bifurcation of jurisdiction vide Government of India Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2017, the Application (OA No. 993/2014) was transferred from Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Bangalore to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No. 396/2017. The credit facility for Rs 34,00,000/- (Rupees thirty-four lakh only) availed by the defendants and defaulted subsequently in gross violation of the terms and conditions stipulated in the loan agreement is the subject matter of the TA.

2. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule immovable property.

\

3. The Applicant further contents that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

4. Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed their Vakalath and Written statement, but they failed adduce any evidence. The applicant was adduced their evidence through AW3, who filed proof affidavit, produced documents and got marked Ext.A3 to A10 list of which are annexed to this order.

5. Written statement was filed by Defendants alleging that the bank fails to produce the copy of the mortgage deed as a proof existence of security agreement/mortgage deed in favour of the Applicant bank for issuance of demand notice. The said demand notice and possession notice are not served either of borrowers or guarantor, and the bank has failed to produce copy of service, and the applicant bank failed to affix or publish the said notices. The applicant had already taken the physical possession of the under the virtue of the order passed by presiding officer of 7th ACMM of 2011, without giving any statutory notice for vacating property they proceeded the order at that time a lady tenant along with minor child were staying there.

6. While dealing with the above contentions the applicant bank were produced the documents i.e., demand promissory note, housing loan agreement, letter of undertaking from the borrower, sale deed, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed, letter, demand notice, legal notice along with proof of service and account statement as Ext. A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, and A10 respectively. These documents are sufficient to prove the availment of the credit facility. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. However, the Defendants failed to substantiate their contentions either by way of any affidavit nor documentary evidence.

7. The Applicant evidence remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The applicant bank submitted in the proof affidavit, that the applicant has sold the secured asset in e-auction for a sum of Rs.45,01,000/- on 14.01.2015 and the amount is adjusted with the loan account of the defendants. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant is to be found entitled for the TA claim as the only issue as to the proof of TA claim is answered in favour of the applicant.

8. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest till 22.09.2018 and Applicant already sold the property and recovered an amount of Rs. 45,01,000/- and adjusted the amount to the loan account and the facility is availed in respect of Housing credit facility, the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 8%.

9. In view of the above i. TA 396 OF 2017 stands allowed ii. Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 52,03,187/- (Rupees fifty-two lakh three thousand one hundred and eighty-seven only) after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA including the amount of Rs. 45,01,000/- received by sale of the schedule property on 14.01.2015. the balance due amount can recover with future interest @ 08.00%. (simple) from 15.01.2015 till realization from the defendants jointly, severally and personally and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally, personally and their other assets. iii. A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery Officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms.

iv. Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order. 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.

10. 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 PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of June 2025)

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Applicant Witness:

AW1 –Sri.S. K. Vasantha Kumar, Chief Manager, Applicant Bank Exhibits on the part of the Applicant: Ext A1- Applicant Evidence Ext A2- List of Document Ext A3- Loan Application Ext A4- Letter of sanction Ext A5- On demand Promissory Note Ext A6- Housing Loan Agreement Ext A7- Letter of undertaking Ext A8- Legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement Ext A9- Certified copy of the statement of account

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

-Nil – List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER