Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD vs MR ANAND S.CHOLLI on 18 January 2020
(23) ✓ X p 6
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU**
Dated this the 18<sup>th</sup> day of January 2020
**Present:**
**Shri K Ravindran Nair
Hon'ble Presiding Officer
Incharge-DRT-II**
**T.A.No.869/2017
(O.A.No.1223/2015-DRT-I)**
**BETWEEN:**
**The Federal Bank Ltd.,**
Branch Office at:
K M Plaza,
Kanakapura Main Road,
30<sup>th</sup> Cross, 7<sup>th</sup> Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore- 560 082.
**Represented by its Authorized Signatory &
Chief Manager**
**Mr. Geevarghese T M**
S/o. Late Mathai T P
** ...APPLICANT**
**AND:**
**1) Mr. Anand S Cholli**
S/o. Sri S Cholli
Aged about 32 years
**2) Mrs. Asha Rani**
W/o. Mr. Anand S Cholli
Aged about 32 years
**Both are residing at:**
112/1C, 7<sup>th</sup> Cross,
18<sup>th</sup> Main, 2<sup>nd</sup> Phase, J P Nagar, Bengaluru- 560 078.
**Also at:** Flat bearing No.222 and 223
2T.A.869/2017 in
in Second Floor, "Nisarga Keerthana"
Chandapura Village,
Attibele(H), Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru- 560 081.
** ...DEFENDANTS**
**Counsels on record/appeared for:**
**Applicant** : Sri Jai M Patil
**D1 & D2** : Ex-parte
**FINAL ORDERS**
The present Application came to be registered on 31.03.2015 and transferred to DRT-II, Bengaluru, on the point of jurisdiction and renumbered as Transfer Application No.869/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.52,99,035/- (Rupees Fifty-Two Lakhs Ninety-Nine Thousand Thirty-Five only) from the Defendants together with interest and cost.
2. The case of the applicant bank is that defendants 1 and 2 approached applicant bank for a Housing loan of Rs.60 lac. The applicant bank considered their request and sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs.48,83,321/- vide sanction letter dated 24.06.2013. The Defendants executed necessary documents in favour of the applicant bank in respect of the Housing loans.
3T.A.869/2017 in
After availing the Housing loan, the defendants failed to regularize the loan account and also failed to pay the interest/installments, they did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. The Applicant bank caused the recall notice dated 12.01.2015, even then defendants failed to pay the outstanding amount. Hence, the O.A was filed in DRT-I and now renumbered as TA.869/2017 after transfer to DRT-II. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., loan application, sanction letter, DP Note, recall notice and certified copy of loan account extract etc.
3. Further the defendants agreed to repay the above loan with variable rate of interest, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and to keep the account regular by paying installments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.
4T.A.869/2017 in
4. The defendants after utilizing the entire loan proceeds for the above said purpose have failed to make the repayments of the loan dues as agreed, not serviced the interest thereon as per the terms and conditions agreed by them and became chronic defaulters and hence, the recovery process is initiated against the defendants to recover the dues.
5. In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that, Defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.52,99,035/- (Rupees Fifty-Two Lakhs Ninety-Nine Thousand Thirty-Five only).
6. After filing the OA, summons were sent through RPAD on Defendants 1 and 2 and the same were returned with a postal shara "addressee left". Thereafter summons published through paper publications against the defendant No.1 and 2. Even then, when defendants were called out, defendants remained absent and defendants 1 to 2 were placed ex parte.
5T.A.869/2017 in
7. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Senior Manager Mr. Suresh Prabhu A, S/o. Mr. Anantha Prabhu., has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and marked at Ex. A-1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex.A-2 and 12 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-14.
8. No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.
9. Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/applicant bank heard and perused the records of the case.
10. Following points arise for my consideration:
- a) Whether Plaintiff/applicant bank proves its case as contended in the plaint/application?
- b) What order?
11. For the following reasons, I answer the above referred points in the following manner:
**REASONS**
12. Mr.Suresh Prabhu A., S/o. Mr. Anantha Prabhu, Senior Manager, of the applicant bank came to be examined as AW-1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterates the facts pleaded in 6T.A.869/2017 in
the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above referred Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-14 which clearly establish the case of the applicant bank to allow the present TA. Added to this, the defendants remained absent, hence it is to be construed that the defendants have admitted the entire case pleaded by the applicant bank as sought in the present TA.
14. Therefore, for these reasons, present TA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the applicant bank.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**:ORDER:**
Present TA stands allowed as prayed for with costs.
Defendants 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.52,99,035/- (Rupees Fifty-Two Lakhs Ninety-Nine Thousand Thirty-Five only) with interest at the rate of 12.85% P.A., with monthly rests, from the date of application till the date of realization, as sought by the Applicant Bank in the TA.
In the event of failure of Defendants to pay the said TA amount, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the hypothecated immovable assets as described in the Schedule-A
7T.A.869/2017 in and Schedule-B of the main petition in accordance with law as sought by the applicant bank in the TA.
In spite of sale of the properties mentioned in the Schedule/s, if the TA amount is not fully realized, then the Applicant Bank is at liberty to proceed against the person and other properties of the Defendants as required under law and also as advised.
Applicant Bank shall file fresh Memo of calculation of TA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by Defendants duly taking into account the amount/s if any paid by the Defendants and/or amount realized by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening period after filing the TA, to enable the office to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank.
Office is directed to issue Recovery Certificate.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2020)
**(K. Ravindran Nair)** **Presiding Officer** **I/C - DRT II, Bengaluru**
8T.A.869/2017 in O.A.No.1223/2015**ANNEXURES:****LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT-BANK:**
AW.1 – Mr. Suresh Prabhu A, S/o. Mr. Anantha Prabhu Senior Manager the of the Applicant bank **LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT BANK:**
Ex.A1 : Affidavit of AW.1 Ex.A2 : List of documents Exs.A3 – A.14 : 12 documents
**LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:**
- NIL -
**LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:**
-NIL-
**(K Ravindran Nair) Presiding Officer I/c-DRT-II, Bengaluru**
\*ss\*