Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
STATE BANK OF INDIA vs K. PRAMELA on 31 August 2019
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU**
Dated this the 31<sup>st</sup> day of August, 2019
**Present: Shri K Ravindran Nair
Hon`ble Presiding Officer
Incharge-DRT-II**
**T.A.No.2211/2017
(O.A.NO.531/2015-DRT-I)**
**BETWEEN:**
**State Bank of India
'Garaldini Complex'
Sath Katcheri Road
Opp: STN Talkies
Raichur-584 102
Represented by its Chief Manager
Mr.Ramesh V.Joshi**
** ...APPLICANT**
**AND:**
1. **1) Smt K.Pramela
W/o Sri K.V.Krishna Rao**
2. **2) Sri K.Naveen Kumar
S/o Sri K.V.Krishna Rao**
**Both are r/at:
H.No.7-6-61/A17
Vasavipura
Raichur-584 102**
** ....DEFENDANTS**
**Counsels on record/appeared for:**
**Applicant : Sri P.L.Vijay Kumar
D1 & D2 : Smt.Jyothi B.Kangokar (WS not filed)**
**FINAL ORDERS**
The present Application came to be registered on 29.12.2014 on the basis of jurisdictional transfer and
renumbered as Transfer Application No.2211/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.2,48,10,062/- (Rupees two crore forty-eight lakh ten thousand and sixty-two only) from the Defendants together with interest and cost.
2. The case of the applicant bank is that defendant No.1 had approached the applicant bank for financial assistance along with defendant No.2 who stood as guarantor. The applicant bank considered their request and sanctioned (i) ATL loan of Rs.1.40 crores and (ii) Demand loan of Rs.48.56 lakhs vide sanction letters dated 30.06.2010 and 21.09.2010. Defendants have executed necessary loans documents in favour of the applicant bank. After availing the loans, the defendants failed to regularize the loan accounts and also failed to pay the installments, they did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. Hence, the present TA is filed. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., loan applications, sanction letters, hypothecation agreement, guarantee deed, revival
letters, security delivery letter, letter of authority, letter of lien, DP note, balance confirmation and certified copies of account extracts etc.
3. Further the defendants agreed to repay the above loan with variable rates 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 TA by the Applicant Bank.
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 and they have not serviced the loan 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.2,48,10,062/- (Rupees two crore forty-eight lakh ten thousand and sixty-two only).
6. After filing the TA, summons were sent through RPAD, same were served on defendant No.1 and 2, both appeared through their common advocate but, in spite of sufficient opportunities granted for more than a year; written statements have not been filed by defendants, hence, defendants placed expertise.
7. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Chief Manager, Sri.S.V.Rajapurohit, S/o V.G.Rajapurohit, 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 16 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-18.
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:
5T.A.2211/2017 in O.A.No.531/2015**REASONS**
12. Sri.S.V.Rajapurohit, S/o V.G.Rajapurohit, Chief Manager of the applicant bank came to be examined as AW-1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterates the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above referred Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-18 which clearly establish the case of the applicant bank to allow the present TA. Added to this, the defendants 1 and 2 in spite of entering appearance did not chose to file their written statement and also not led any evidence to contest the matter and rebut the claim of the applicant bank 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.
13. 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 with costs.
Defendants shall be jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.2,48,10,062/- (Rupees two crore forty-eight lakh ten thousand and sixty-two only) i., (i) Rs. 2,14,09,442/- towards
ATL a/c with interest at the rate of 13.20% p.a. and (ii) Rs.34,00,620/- towards Demand loan with interest at the rate of 14.50% p.a, both loans 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 mortgaged movable property as mentioned in the Mortgage deed (Ex.A6) produced in 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 31<sup>st</sup> day of August, 2019)
**(K. Ravindran Nair)**
**Presiding Officer**
**I/C - DRT II, Bengaluru**
**ANNEXURES:**
**LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT-BANK:**
AW.1 – Sri S.V.Rajapurohit, S/o V.G.Rajapurohit Chief Manager of Applicant bank **LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT BANK:**
<table> <tbody> <tr> <td>Ex.A1</td> <td>:</td> <td>Affidavit of AW.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ex.A2</td> <td>:</td> <td>List of documents</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Exs.A3 – A.18</td> <td>:</td> <td>16 documents</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
**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**
c/
This image is a scan of a blank white piece of paper. It contains no text, figures, or tables. There are a few very small, faint dark specks scattered across the surface, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. The overall appearance is that of a clean, empty page.