BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI A.I.RNO.464/2011 APPEAL NO RA(SA)123/2011 IN S.ANO.

59/2011
PETITIONER/S APPELLANT/S
SRI.RAMESH VARANASI

DEFENDANT/S,RESPONDENT
STATE BANK OF MYSORE, REP: AO

REPLY TO COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED OF R1 I ,RAMES VARANASI, SON OF LAKSHMI NARANYANA AGED ABOUT 42YRS, RESIDING AT NO.888,NAGARBHABI 1ST STAGE BANGLORE DO HERE BY SOLEMONLY AFFIRM AND STATE ON OATH AS FOLLOWS 1. I AM THE APPLICANT OF THE ABOVE CASE. 2. I STATE THAT I AM THE ORIGINAL BORROWER AND BORROWED A SUM OF RS.29,40,134 3. WHILE GRANTING LOAN ,WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE INCLUDED SBI LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM RS.1,61,866 THEREFORE ACTUAL BORROWING AMOUNT IS 31,02,000 RS.1,61,866 =RS.29,40,134 4. R1 HAS DECLARED THE LOAN ACCOUNT AS NPA ON 31.05.2010 AND THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING PLUS INTEREST WAS RS.32,34,257 WHICH IS WRONG. AS ON THAT DATE THE ACTUAL IRREGULAR AMOUNT IS RS.1,40,000 APPROXIMATELY AND NOT RS.1,73,658 AS CLAIMED BY THEM 5. ALTHOUGH R1 HAS DECLARED THE ACCOUNT AS NPA ON 31.05.2010, AS PER THE RBI REGULATION AND THE ACT ENVISAGED, THE BORROWER HAS TO BE INFORMED IN WRITING WHEN THE LOAN ACCOUNT IS ACTUALLY DECLARED AS NPA .R1 HAVE FAILED IN COMMUNICATING THE SAME BY WRITING AND OR ORAL,SO THIS IS A FIRST DEFICIENCY OF R1 AND TO THAT EXTENT THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE TRIBUNAL BELOW ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION THE APPLICANT WAS NOT INFORMED BEFORE DECLARING OR CLASSIFYING HIS ACCOUNT AS NPA CANNOT BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF THIS ALONE THE APPEAL SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITH COST . AS RELIED UPON RAJKUMAR AGARWAL VS PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND OTHERS IN DRAT DELHI, 1(2009)BC 66 (DRAT). 6. PETITIONER STATE THAT SECTION 13.2 DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS.33,73,837 WAS DUE AS ON 27.08.2010, ON 18.10.2010 THERE WAS A CREDIT OF RS.342. IT MEANS WITHIN 60 DAYS OF TIME PERIOD THERE IS CREDIT ENTRY AS PER THE STATEMENT SHOWN IN PAGE 80 OF THE MAIN APPEAL (ANNEXURE J) ALTHOUGH R1 HAS SERVED DN BT THEY HAVE FAILED TO PASTE THE SAME PUBLICATION ON THE PREMISES OF THE BORROWER AND NO PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THIS EFFECT AND HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE ,TRIBUNAL BELOW . THE TRIBUNAL FAILED AND OVERLOOKED THIS PROCEDURE THERE BY DENING THE NATURAL JUSTICE EITHER BEFORE AO AND OR TRIBUNAL BELOW TO AGITATE THE ERRENOUS DECLARATION OF BORROWED AMOUNT. THEREFORE MY APPEAL IS TO BE CONSIDERED ANB SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITH COST. AS PER THE ANNEXTURE J ,THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY R1 TO P1 SHOWS ANYWHERE THE ACCOUNT IS DECLARED AND SHOWN AS NPA ON 31.05.2010,WHICH IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE P1 WITH THE RESULT THE ACCOUNT BEING IMPROPER.

7. AS PER PARAGRAPH 5 OF R1 STATEMENT, THE BALANCE AS ON 13.7.2011 IS RS.13,12,134 WHERE AS THE DATE ON NPA,31.5.2010 IS TO BE RS.32,34,257. THE BANK OVERCHAREGED PENAL INTEREST ON THE WRONG BASIS OF DECLARED LOAN AMOUNT. ANY AMOUNT BEING SERVICED TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 60 DAYS THE CAUSE OF ACTION , TO TAKE FURTHER STEPS SHALL BE DEFERRED AND A FRESH CAUSE OF ACTION WILL START FROM THE DATE OF SERVICING TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT I.E ON 18.10.2010 AND THEREFORE ALL FURTHER ACTION TAKEN BY R1 IS ILLEGAL, VOID AND NOT MAINTAINABLE AS PER THE ACT AND LAW. THEREFORE MY APPEAL SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND SET ASIDE THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 6.01.2011.AS I PRAYED IN THE PLAINT . DURING THESE PERIODS I REQUESTED THE R1 TO PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS FROM BIRTH TO DEATH ON RECORD OF MY LOAN ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION AND RECALCULATION OF MY EXACT LOAN ACCOUNT PAYABLE TO THEM FOR WHICH THEY HAVE DENIED THIS OPPORTUNITY AND THEREFORE I SOUGHT THROUGH RTI AS PER ANNEXTURE L &M .EVEN DURING THIS RTI REQUEST R1 HAVE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE MAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO LOAN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE I AM DEPRIVED OF MY EXACT POSITION OF MY LOAN ACCOUN T AND COMPLETER VIOLATION OF RULES AND OVERRIDING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE ACT.

PETITIONER FURTHE STATE THAT SECTION 13.4 AND 14 HAVE SIMULATNEOUS CASCADING EFFECT. R1 HAVE PUBLISHED THE POSSESSIONNOTICE AS PER ANNEXUR-F1 IN THE APPEAL FORM SHOWING AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE BEING Rs. 33,73,83 AND THE SAME NOTICE, THE BORROWER HAVE PAID RS.35,370 AND CLAIMING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AS RS.33,38,467 AS ON DATE 28-08-2010. THIS AMOUNT HAVE NOT BEING REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY R1 AND THUS THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE NORMS AND IRREGULARITIES AND NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED THE ACCOUNTS, AS IT IS A MUST. THIS FACTOR HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY TRIBUNAL BELLOW AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND HAVE DISMISSED MY S.A. 59/11, Dt. 18-05-2011. THIS HONORABLE COURT TAKE THIS VIEW AND ALLOW MY APPEA AND SETASIDE THE POSSESSION NOTICE. IT IS A SETTELED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT IF INITIAL ACTION IS NOT IN CONSONENCE WITH LAW THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT SATISFY THE SAME IN SUCH A FACT THE LEGAL MAXIM SUBLATO FUNDAMENTO CEDIT OPUS IS APPLICABLE MEANING IN CASE A FOUNDATION IS REMOVE THE SUPERSTRUCTURE WILL FALL.

PETITIONER STATE THAT IN THE PAPER PUBLICTION ON DEMAND NOTICE AND IN POSSESSION NOTICE MENTIONING /SHOWING THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT AMOUNT/FIGURES. THIS ITSELF IS A VIOLATION OF LAW AND THE PETITIONER HOW TO BELIVE THE FUTURE TRANSACTION OF THE BANK. PLEASE REFER PAGE No.59 AND 65 OF THE MAIN APPEAL. PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE POSESSION NOTICE IN S.A. No.59/11 AND OBTAIN INTERIM STAY ON 09/12-FEB., 2011 WITH DIRECTION TO REGULARISE THE ACCOUNT /DEFAULTED ARREARS OF INSTALMENT TOGETHER WITH INTEREST WITHIN 30 DAYS PERIOD EXPIRING ON 11/14-03-2011. THE PETITIONER HAVE PAID ON 14-03-2011, Rs.2.8 lakhs AND ON 29-04-2011, Rs.2.00 LAKHS TOTAL AMOUNT OF 4.8 LAKHS PAID. PETITIONER STATE THAT THE R1 HAVE NOT GIVEN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS UPTODATE AND THE EXACT AMOUNT PAYABLE AS ON DATE FOR UPGRADATION OF THE ACCOUNT FROM NPA TO PA AS PROVIDED IN SUB PARA 2.2.1 (ii) OF RBI S MASTER CIRCULAR ON NORMS FOR INCOME RECOGNITION, ASSET CLASSIFICATION AND PROVISIONING AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS, DATED 07-01-2009. THEREFORE , THERE WAS A DELAY OF MAKING SECOND INSTSLMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN TOLD IN THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING 11-03-2011. DURING THAT TIME THERE IS NO SITTING REGULARLY AT DRT, BANGALORE TO HEAR MY GROUNDS.

R1 TAKING THE ADVANTAGE , THEY HAVE ENFDSORCE THE SECTION 14, OBTAINED CMM ORDER No.490/11 AND TAKEN PHYSICAL POSSESSION ON 8TH MARCH 2011, BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED11/14-03-2011. THEY HAVE COMPLETELY VIOLATED THE COURT ORDER AND BEFORE HEARING FURTHER ENCROACHED THE PREMISES SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITH THE HELP OF POLICE PROTECTION. DURING THE TRIAL PERIOD, AS PER ANNEXURE K, PAGE No.84 HAND WRITTEN UNDATED STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER , THE ACTUAL LIABILITY AMOUNT OF RS.5,50,000/-. P1 HAVE ALREADY PAID RS.4.8 LAKHS AND ASKED FOR THE CLARIFICATION FOR THE BALANCE AMONT PAYABLE. ACTUALLY THERE IS NO DUE ON PRINCIPLE AND INTEREST AMONT AND UPDATED THE ACCOUNT , AND THERE IS NO LONGER, THE ACCOUNT IS TREATED AS NPA. BECAUSE OF INORDINATE DELAY IN DECLARING THE AMOUNT FROM THE BEGINNING P1 COULD NOT FULLFIL THE TIME LIMIT AND THE COURT BELOW ALSO HAVE NOT TAKEN MY ORAL SUNBMISSION ON RECORD AND DISMISSED MY S.A. HENCE, P1 HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY NORM EXCEPT DELAY IN FULFILLING THE SECOND INSTALMENT AS PER THE INTERIM ORDER FOR REGULARISATION OF ACCOUNT. PETITIONER STATE THAT THEY HAVE FULLLFILED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT AND REMITTED Rs.5.00 , with the hope of getting ONE PART OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. INITIALLY, RESPONDENT HAVE AGREED TO GIVE BACK ONE PORTION AFTER REMITTING THE ARREARS OF AMOUNT RS.4.80. PETITIONER HAVE ALSO FULFILLED THE CONDITION. IT IS A DISAPPOINTMENT FROM THE R1 AND SENSING OUT THE INCOME OF THIS HON BLE COURT, THEY ARE (R1) STILL MORE REGID, ADAMENT NOT ACCOMMODATING THE PETITIONER AND R1 AWAITING THE COURT INSTRUCTIONS , THEN THEY MAY LIKELYU TO CONSIDER GIVING ONE PART OUT OF THREE HOUSES. PETITIONER PRAY THAT THIS HON BLE COURT, TAKING INTO DEFECTS IN THEIR SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS AND FULLFIL THE COURT ORDER THEREBY ALL THE INSTALMNENT DUES PAID UPTO DECEMBER 2011 AND IN THE EYES OF LAW THERE IS NO NPA. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER PLEAD THIS HON BLE COURT TO PASS AN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE R1 GIVING REPOSSESSION OF ONE HOUSE OUT OF THREE TO PROTECT, PRESERVE MY FAMILY AND PROPERTY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. PETITONER ALSO HAS GIVEN A LETTER, AS AN ALTERNATIVE IF THE R1 STILL REGID, THEY CAN CONSIDER OTHER PROPOSITION GIVEN IN LETTER DATED 03-11-2011. PETITIONER ALSO READY TO GIVEN UNDERTAING TO CONTINUE SIMULTANEOUSLY MAKING E.M.I. REGULARLY AND OFFERING FURTHER TO BRING DOWN THE LOAN AMOUNT SUBSTATIALLY, AS R1 HAVE INFORMED THIS COURT DURING THE 1ST HEARING, IF P1 PAY A LUMPSUM AMOUNT OF RS.8.00 LAKHS FOR WHICH R1 CAN GIVE ONE HOUSE FOR LIVING AND THEREFORE P1 IS ALSO READY TO FULLFIL THE BALANCE AUNT OF RS.3.00 LAKHS WITHIN A MONTH. THERECCCCCFORE PETITIONER PRAY BEFORE THE COURT TO CONSIDER AND TAKING INTO THE REQUEST MADE BY THE P1 HAS AN ALTERNATIVE AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE PETRITONER, BEFORE PASSING ANY SUCH AN ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. BANGLORE 5.12.2011 COUNSIL FOR APPELLANT