IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KARNATAKA

AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 21st day of January, 2017

Present: Shri.K.Srinivasan
Presiding Officer

OA No.896/2015

The Federal Bank Limited

Bannerghatta Branch,
No.53/3,4,5
Limra Towers, Bannerghatta
Bangalore - 560 083
Rep by its Senior Manager.
Sri.Jaymon V.G . APPLICANT

V/s
1. Smt.S.Lakshmi,
W/o Sri.B.Subramani
2. Sri.S.Rakesh,
S/o Sri.B.Subramani
3. Sri.S.Ramesh
S/o Sri. Sri.B.Subramani

All are residing at

No.93, 7th Cross, Papanna Block,
RBI Colony, Ganganagar,
Bangalore 560 024 ... DEFENDANTS

Counsel on record/appeared for:

Applicant : V.S.Rai & Associates
Defendants : Sri.M.A.Rajendra

FINAL ORDER

1. The above Application is filed by the Applicant-Bank

under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks

and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the

 2 OA No.896/2015.
Defendants for recovery of the sum of Rs.23,24,004/-

besides future interest etc.

2. The facts alleged by the Applicant-Bank in this OA

are as follows:

Defendant No.1 is borrower and defendants No.2

and 3 are co-obligant. The defendant No.1 had availed a

housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- on 28.08.2008. The

defendants had agreed to repay the loan amount in 240

equated monthly installments of Rs.25,133/- together

with interest @ 13% p.a with monthly rests and

additional 2 % interest. The defendants have executed

DPN, Federal Housing Scheme Agreement, loan

agreement, mortgage of title deeds, letter of confirming

deposit of title deeds. The applicant bank has issued

demand notice dt:23.11.2012 and legal notice

dt:29.01.2015. Inspite of issued notices, the defendants

have not settled the claim of the applicant, hence the

applicant bank has filed the present OA.

3. The case of Defendants as pleaded in their Written

Statement is as follows:
 3 OA No.896/2015.
Present OA is not maintainable, in law or on

facts hence the OA is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Defendants admit the borrowing of loan and execution of

documents. Proper stamp duty is not paid by the bank.

All the loan documents, promissory notes, etc are signed

by Late Sri.Subramani, husband of defendant No.1.

Hence legal heirs of the defendant No.1 husband Late

Sri.Subramani has to be brought on record. The

applicant bank has not issued any recall notice to the

defendants. The loan account cannot be classified as

NPA since the account is upgraded to standard assets.

The defendants never agreed for charging of interest over

and above 13% pa and 2% penal interest. The power of

attorney has not authorized Sri.Jaymon.V.G. who has

filed the present applicant on behalf of the bank; the

applicant bank has enclosed a power of attorney, wherein

nowhere Sri.Jaymon.V.G.has been authorized to act on

behalf of the bank. The applicant bank has not

considered the request of OTS and rescheduling housing

loan account. In view of these reasons the defendants

seek to dismiss the OA.

 4 OA No.896/2015.
4. To prove the case of the Applicant-Bank, its

Chief Manager has filed Affidavit by way of evidence and

same was considered as evidence of AW1 and marked at

Ex.A1. List of Documents came to be marked at Ex.A2

and 12 documents came to be marked at Ex.A3 to A14,.

5. No evidence on behalf of defendants

6. Arguments heard and perused the records of the

case.

7. Following points arise for my consideration:

1) Whether Applicant bank proves its case as

contended in the plaint/application?
2) What order?

8. For the following reasons, I answer the above-

referred points in the following manner:

FINDINGS:
1. In the Affirmative
2. As per Final Order

: POINTS :

9. There is no dispute regarding borrowing of loan and

execution of loan documents. It is stated by the

defendants that proper stamp duty is not paid by the

 5 OA No.896/2015.
applicant bank. It is relevant to place on record

that defendants shall come forward to state which is the

document requires stamp duty, what is the quantum of

stamp duty required for each document and what is the

deficiency of payment of stamp duty etc. The details

regarding the said contentions have not been mentioned

in the written statement. Hence, said contention does

not survive. The next contention of the defendants

regarding legal heirs of Late Subramani, husband of

defendant No.1. It is relevant to note that the defendants

have not filed an interim application after the demise of

Late Subramani. Hence this contention cannot be stand

for consideration. It is relevant note that, records clearly

establish that the defendants is dragging the repayment

inspite of sufficient opportunities; defendants have not

repaid the said loan as agreed. Therefore, on account of

continuous defaults in repayment the applicant bank has

classified the loan account as NPA hence one cannot

state said act is illegal. It is also relevant to note that,

the documents of applicant bank specifically, sanction

letter, clearly establish that defendants have agreed to

pay interest and penal interest as sought by the

 6 OA No.896/2015.
applicant bank in OA. It is stated by the defendants

that the applicant bank has enclosed a power of attorney,

wherein nowhere Sri.Jaymon.V.G.has been authorized to

act on behalf of the bank; the document Annexure-1

which is produced by the applicant bank clearly shows

the name of Shri Jaymon.V.G at covering page of power

attorney; hence this contention of the defendants cannot

be accepted. With regard to OTS, etc, it is relevant to

place on record that the defendants have not produced

any request letter addressed to applicant bank; the mere

statement of defendants unacceptable. Therefore

documents of applicant bank stand accepted by

discarding the defense of defendants by allowing the OA

and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER
Present OA stands allowed with costs.

Defendants jointly and severally shall pay a sum of

Rs.23,35,005/- with contractual interest along with the

future interest at the prevailing rate of interest of 14.75%

p.a with monthly rests and overdue interest at 2% p.a

 7 OA No.896/2015.
with monthly rests from the date of the application till

the date of complete realization.

In the event of failure of defendants to pay the

said OA amount, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell

the hypothecated /mortgaged movables/immovables

properties described in schedule of the main petition

according to law as sought by the applicant bank in the

OA.

In spite of sale of the properties mentioned in the

Schedule/s, if the OA 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 latest Memo of calculation

of OA 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 OA, to enable the office to prepare Recovery

Certificate for the amount to be paid by the Defendants

to the Applicant Bank.

 8 OA No.896/2015.
Office is directed to issue Recovery Certificate

as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA and do the

needful as required under law forthwith.

[Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him and after necessary corrections, signed and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of January, 2017]

PRESIDING OFFICER
DRT, BANGALORE

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined on behalf of applicant

bank:

AW.1: Smt.Lalitha.R, Chief Manager 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 A14 : 12 documents as per Ex.A2

List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants :

- NIL -

List of documents marked on behalf of defendants :

- NIL -

Presiding Officer
DRT, Bangalore.