Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs HANUMANTHARAYA .N on 28 December 2019
29
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU**
Dated this the 28<sup>th</sup> day of December 2019
**Present:**
**Shri K Ravindran Nair
Hon`ble Presiding Officer
Incharge-DRT-II**
**T.A.No.2016/2017
(O.A.No.2020/2015-DRT-I)**
**BETWEEN:**
**Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,**
Branch Office at:
No.59, Sree Complex,
BHSC 'T' Block, Banashankari,
3<sup>rd</sup> Stage, Bengaluru-560 085.
**Represented by its Authorized officer- Mr. Sreenath Surampudi.**
S/o.Late SRK Murthy
** ...APPLICANT**
**AND:**
**1) Mr.Hanumantharaya N.**
S/o. Mr. Nagappa.L
**2) Mrs.Jayalakshmi.D.S**
W/o. Mr.Hanumantharaya N
**Both are r/at:** No.1218/30, Heggenahalli Cross, Gajanana Nagar, Vishwaneedam Post, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru-560 091.
**Also at:** Sri Raghavendra Coffee Centre, Hegganahalli Main Road, NeAr Petrol Bunk, Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru-560 091.
** ...DEFENDANTS**
**Counsels on record/appeared for:**
**Applicant : J.S.Advocates
D1 & D2 : Ex-parte**
2T.A.2016/2017 in
O.A.No.2020/2015**FINAL ORDERS**
The present Application came to be registered on 18.09.2015 and transferred to DRT-II, Bengaluru, on the point of jurisdiction and renumbered as Transfer Application No.2016/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.21,68,513/- (Rupees Twenty one lakhs sixty eight thousand five hundred and thirteen only) from the Defendants together with interest and cost.
2. The case of the applicant bank is that defendants 1 and 2 borrower and co-borrower had approached (originally requested M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited the original lender) applicant bank seeking financial assistance for housing loan. The applicant bank considered their request and sanctioned Housing loan of Rs.7,45,000/- vide sanction letter dated 17.08.2005. Defendants have executed necessary documents in favour of the applicant bank in respect of the loan. After availing the loan, the defendants failed to regularize the 3T.A.2016/2017 in
loan account and also failed to pay the interest/installments, they did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. The Applicant bank has issued recall notice dated 30.09.2013 to the defendants, for which the defendants have not taken any steps to clear the dues. Hence, the O.A was filed in DRT-I and now renumbered as TA.2016/2017 after transfer to DRT-II. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., loan application, sanction letter, DP note, loan recall notice, certified copy of 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.
4. The defendants after utilizing the entire loan proceeds for the above said purpose have failed to make the repayments of 4T.A.2016/2017 in
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.21,68,513/- (Rupees Twenty one lakhs sixty eight thousand five hundred and thirteen only).
6. After filing the OA, summons were sent through RPAD on D1 and D2 and the same were returned with a postal shara "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.
7. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Chief Manager Mr. Keerthinatha S., has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and marked at Ex. A-1
5T.A.2016/2017 in
and list of documents came to be marked as Ex.A-2 and 20 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-22.
1. 8. No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.
2. 9. Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/ applicant bank heard and perused the records of the case.
3. 10. Following points arise for my consideration:
1. a) Whether Plaintiff/applicant bank proves its case as contended in the plaint/application?
2. b) What order?
4. 11. For the following reasons, I answer the above referred points in the following manner:
**REASONS**
1. 12. Mr.Keerthinatha S., S/o., Shankar, 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-22 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 6T.A.2016/2017 in
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 shall be jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.21,68,513/- (Rupees Twenty one lakhs sixty eight thousand five hundred and thirteen only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. at 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 movable assets 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 properties mentioned in the Schedule/s, if the TA amount is not fully realized, then the 7T.A.2016/2017 in
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 **28<sup>th</sup> day of December, 2019**)
**(K. Ravindran Nair)**
**Presiding Officer**
**I/C - DRT II, Bengaluru**
8T.A.2016/2017 in O.A.No.2020/2015**ANNEXURES:****LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT-BANK:**
AW.1 – Mr. Keerthinatha S., S/o., Shankar. Chief Manager the of 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.22 : 20 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\*