Allowed

Canara Bank v. S. Chinnapaiyan

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/153/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant Canara Bank sought recovery of dues from respondents under Section 19 RDB Act. Tribunal allowed the application, finding claim undisputed and within limitation, awarding principal with 9% simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.24,27,235/- plus future and pendentelite interest at 9% simple from date of filing. Schedule properties liable to sale; legal heirs liable to extent of inheritance. Recovery certificate

Canara Bank versus S. Chinnapaiyan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.153 OF 2022 (Old OA.No.62/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

Canara Bank,

¶5

1, Bazaar, Street, Panapakkam, Vellore District, Represented by its Manager Gana Bhushan S/o.Suryanarayana Rao

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

S. Chinnapaiyan (Died) S/o.Chellan.

¶9

D.Padmavathy, W/o.C.Durai,

¶10

Old No.36, New No.8, Perumal Koil Street, Ganapathipuram, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District.

¶11

Chinnaponnu, W/o.S.Chinnapaiyan, Old No. 36, New No.8, Perumal Koil Street Ganapathipuram, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District.

¶12

¶13

Raj,

¶14

S/o.S.Chinnapaiyan, Old No.36, New No.8, Perumal Koil Street, Ganapathipuram, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District.

¶15

Ravichandran, S/o.S.Chinnapaiyan, Old No.36, New No.8, Perumal Koil Street, Ganapathipuram, Arakonam Talluk, Vellore District.

¶16

Chokhalingam, S/o.S.Chinnapaiyan, Old No. 36, New No.8, Perumal Koil Street, Ganapathipuram, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District.

¶17

Vaidegi, D/o.S.Chinnapaiyan, Old No. 36, New No.8, Perumal Koil Street, Ganapathipuram, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District.

¶18

Saraswathi,

¶19

D/o. S.Chinnapaiyan, Old No. 36, New No.8, Perumal Koil Street, Ganapathipuram, Arakonam Taluk. Vellore District.

¶20

… Defendants.

¶21

¶22

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.R.Sumathy. 1^st Defendant : Deceased. 2^nd to 8^th Defendants : Exparte.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.24,27,235/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by the sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶25

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶26

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶27

The 1^st defendant approached the Applicant for a loan for the purchase of Tractor and Trailer and a loan of Rs.6,80,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed by the Applicant.

¶28

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶29

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants

¶30

had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule B

¶31

¶32

properties. Over and above the execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the tractor and trailer was marked as security for repayment of the loan.

¶33

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 25.03.2013

¶34

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount.

¶35

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶36

The 1^st defendant expired during the pendency of OA and hence the legal Representatives namely defendants 3 to 8 are impleaded. The defendants were set exparte on 17.08.2022.

¶37

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A18 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶38

¶39

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶40

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim?

¶41

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶42

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶43

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is agricultural one pendentelite and future interest is awarded @ 9% (simple).

¶44

In view of the finding as entered above

¶45

i) TA No.153/2022 stands allowed.

¶46

¶47

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.24,27,235/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousands Two Hundred and Thirty Five only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 9%(simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants 2 to 8 after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶48

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against. However defendants 3 to 8 are liable to the extent of their inheritance of estate of deceased 1^st defendant.

¶49

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms.

¶50

v) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶51

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶53

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶54

Rules, 1993.

¶55

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 29^th day of December, 2023)

¶56

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶57

Canara Bank v. S. Chinnapaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. S. Chinnapaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus R.Ramesh

M/s Canara Bank Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank versus T.R. Saravanan

Deutsche Bank Ag versus Kothari Bath Concepts

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari