H V Gopal vs The Bangalore Souhardha Central Cooperative Bank Limited on 9 September 2026

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

IA 953/2026 (Waiver) in A.IR:1285/2026

H V Gopal & 3 Ors V/S The Bangalore Souhardha Central Cooperative Bank Limited 09/09/2026

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants and R1 are present. No representation for R2.

This appeal is filed against final order dated 29.11.2024 passed in SA No.431 of 2024 by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru.

SA No.431 of 2024 has been filed to set aside the order dated 3.6.2019 passed by the Learned 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl. M.P. No.4 of 2019 in respect of the schedule immoveable property. On the dismissal of this appeal, the Petitioners/Appellants filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

Learned Counsel for Petitioners submitted that the demand notice in this case was issued on 11.9.2018 claiming a sum of Rs.27,26,617.56p as due from the Petitioners. In the demand notice, it is mentioned that the loan account has become non-performing asset (NPA) on 2.1.2003. In that case, the demand notice is clearly barred by limitation, for the reason that it was beyond the period of 12 years. He further submitted that Petitioners made several payments to the tune of Rs.12.00 lakhs. To prove the payments, copies of challans have been produced. Thus, on the ground of limitation, and on the ground of partial payment made towards loan due, Learned Counsel for Petitioners seeks for waiver of pre-deposit. No other ground is urged for waiver of pre-deposit.

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank, in reply, submitted that Petitioners were granted an OTS on 29.5.2019 with the direction to pay Rs.13,50,000/-, on the time lines set out in the OTS offer. Petitioners had made only part payment and the OTS failed. It was communicated to the Petitioners on 31.8.2019. In that communication, it was very clearly stated that Petitioners are liable to pay Rs.22,87,621.85p, as on 31.8.2019. Petitioners were also communicated about the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is admitted in the grounds of appeal about issuance of demand notice dated 12.7.2005. It was also admitted that the Respondent Bank approached the Central Registrar under Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, claiming Rs.5,44,871/- with interest @ 14.50% per annum, from 1.2.2009, till passing of arbitration award on 21.5.2011. Petitioners were directed to pay Rs.5,44,871/. Since that was not paid, demand notice dated 11.9.2018 was issued claiming a sum of Rs.27,26,617.56p as due from the Petitioners, as on 31.8.2018. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioners that demand notice was issued beyond the period of limitation is not correct.

Whatever the amount paid by the Petitioners has been apportioned towards the loan account. He further submitted that physical possession has been delivered to the auction purchaser on 2.6.2023.

It is further submitted that after apportioning the payment of Rs.12.00 lakhs paid by the Petitioners, and without considering the sale price, the amount due on the date of filing this appeal is at Rs.60,98,357.46p.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contested this amount and disputed that the amount claimed as due on the date of filing this appeal is not correct. The loan was availed with a simple interest but now the Bank has arrived at this amount by calculating the interest at compounded monthly rates.

In the light of this submission, Learned Counsel for the R1 Respondent Bank is directed to produce a calculation memo as to whether the amount claimed as due at Rs.60,98,357.46p is calculated at simple rate of interest or compound rate of interest.

Post the matter on 15.9.2026 for filing of the calculation memo, and for continuation of proceedings in the waiver application.

Sd/-

Chairperson