Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
UNION BANK OF INDIA vs SAI PRASAD K on 23 November 2019
34.
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU**
Dated this the 23<sup>rd</sup> day of November, 2019
**Present: Shri K Ravindran Nair
Hon`ble Presiding Officer
Incharge-DRT-II**
**T.A.No.1077/2017**
(O.A.NO.153/2017-DRT-II)
**BETWEEN:**
**Union Bank of India**
Jayanagar Branch
No.429/31, Ramakrishna Building
30<sup>th</sup> Cross, Jayanagar 4<sup>th</sup> Block Bengaluru-560 011
**Represented by its Sr.Manager**
**Sri Sathish Rai**
S/o Sri Chikkappa Rai
** ...APPLICANT**
**AND:**
**Sri Sai Prasad K**
S/o Sri Parthasarthy Kuragayala
R/at: JJ Apartment, 38/38, 3<sup>rd</sup> Cross Vijayanagara Layout Bengaluru-560 004
** ....DEFENDANT**
**Counsels on record/appeared for:**
**Applicant : Sri. Prakash Hegde K**
**Defendant : Ex-parte**
**FINAL ORDERS**
The present Application came to be registered on 26.08.2016 on the basis of jurisdictional transfer and
renumbered as Transfer Application No.1077/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.41,17,967/- (Rupees forty-one lakh seventeen thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven only) from the Defendant together with interest and cost.
2. The case of the applicant bank is that defendant had approached the applicant bank for seeking financial assistance for purchase of residential flat. The applicant bank considered his request and sanctioned housing loan of Rs.40,50,000/- vide sanction letter dated 17.07.2015. Defendant has executed necessary documents in favour of the applicant bank in respect of the loan. After availing the loan, the defendant failed to regularize the loan account and also failed to pay the installments, he did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. The Applicant bank has issued recall notice dated 05.08.2016 to the defendant, for which the defendant has not taken any steps to clear the dues . Hence, the O.A was filed and now numbered as TA.1077/2017. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., loan
application, DP note, housing loan agreement, sale deed, memorandum of deposit of title deeds, recall notice, certified copy of account extract etc.
3. Further the defendant 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 OA by the Applicant Bank.
4. The Defendant after utilizing the entire loan proceeds for the above said purpose has failed to make the repayments of the loan dues as agreed, not serviced the interest thereon as per the terms and conditions agreed, has become chronic defaulter. Hence the recovery process is initiated against the defendant to recover the dues.
5. In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that, Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.41,17,967/- (Rupees forty-one lakh seventeen thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven only).
6. After filing the OA, summons were sent through RPAD, same were returned with postal sharas as 'insufficient address' and 'not claimed' and thereafter paper publications were made, even then when defendant was called out, he remained absent and hence, was placed ex parte.
7. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Chief Manager, Sri Katta Rama Rao, S/o Late Subba Rao, 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 6 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-8.
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.1077/2017 in O.A.No.153/2017**REASONS**
12. Sri Katta Rama Rao, S/o Late Subba Rao, 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-8 which clearly establish the case of the applicant bank to allow the present TA. Added to this, the defendant remained absent, hence it is to be construed that the defendant has 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.
**:O R D E R:**
Present TA stands allowed with costs.
Defendant shall be personally liable to pay Rs.41,17,967/- (Rupees forty-one lakh seventeen thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven only) with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. compounded monthly, from the date of application till the date of final realization, as sought by the Applicant Bank in the TA.
In the event of failure of Defendant to pay the said TA amount, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the mortgaged immovable property as described in the Schedule of the main petition in accordance with law as sought by the applicant bank in the TA.
In spite of sale of the property 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 Defendant 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 Defendant duly taking into account the amount/s if any paid by the Defendant 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 Defendant 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 23<sup>rd</sup> day of November, 2019)
**(K. Ravindran Nair)** **Presiding Officer** **I/C - DRT II, Bengaluru**
**ANNEXURES:**
**LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT-BANK:**
AW.1 – Sri Katta Rama Rao, S/o Late Subba Rao 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 – A8</td> <td>:</td> <td>6 documents</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
**LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :**
- NIL -
**LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:**
-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 page, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. The overall background is a uniform off-white color.