Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr M Kalaichelvan and Six Others

DRT28 Dec 2023TA/181/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tranching Application filed under Section 19 of RDB Act for recovery of loan with interest. Court allowed application permitting recovery from defendants jointly and severally via sale of properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.13,07,409 with interest @12.50% p.a.; sale of mortgage/hypothecated properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Mr M Kalaichelvan and Six Others — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 28^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.181 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.90/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager Mr.K.N.Srinivasa Rao, Kumbakonam Branch, Post Box No.47, ‘Abu Tahir Complex’, 27/14, Nageswaran Sannadhi Street, Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶6

… Applicant. Vs.

¶7

Mr.M.Kalaichelvan, S/o.Late K.G.Mahalingam, No.248, Main Road, Manikudi, Thiruvidaimarythur(Tk.), Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶8

Mrs.M.Seethalakshmi, W/o.Late K.G.Mahalingam, No.248, Main Road, Manikudi, Thiruvidaimarythur(Tk.), Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶9

Mrs.M.Karpagam, D/o.Late K.G.Mahalingam, No.248, Main Road, Manikudi, Thiruvidaimarythur(Tk.), Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶10

Ms.M.Kanmani, D/o.Late K.G.Mahalingam, No.248, Main Road, Manikudi, Thiruvidaimarythur(Tk.), Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶11

¶12

Mrs.Kanimozhi, D/o.Late K.G.Mahalingam, No.248, Main Road, Manikudi, Thiruvidaimarythur(Tk.), Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶13

Mr.M.Duraimurugan, S/o.Late K.G.Mahalingam, No.248, Main Road, Manikudi, Thiruvidaimarythur(Tk.), Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶14

Mr.G.Prabhakaran, S/o.Mr.R.Govindarajan, No.248, Main Road, Manikudi, Thiruvidaimarythur(Tk.), Kumbakonam – 612 001. … Defendants.

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy. Defendants : Exparte.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery

¶18

of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.13,07,409/- 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 sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶19

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

¶20

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶21

¶22

The 1^st defendant being the borrower and defendants 2 to 7 being the guarantors had applied for and availed a Medium Term Loan for the purchase of tractor. The facility of 10 Lakhs was disbursed by the Applicant on 09.03.2009.

¶23

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of

¶24

necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶25

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants 1 to 7 had jointly created security by way of equitable mortgage over the item no. 1 to 3 of schedule mentioned properties. Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the tractor was also marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶26

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.

¶27

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to pay back the amount and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account closed. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the

¶28

¶29

applicant had on 30.07.2018 caused to issue a notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶30

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.

¶31

Even though defendants entered appearance, they were failed to appear later and filed reply statement. Hence they were set exparte on 24.11.2023.

¶32

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 A15 which were marked as evidence.

¶33

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:

¶34

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

¶35

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. 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 for agriculture related purpose pendentelite and future interest is awarded at simple rate.

¶39

In view of the finding as entered above

¶40

i) TA No.181 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶41

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.13,07,409/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seven Thousands Four Hundred and Nine only) with future and pendentelite interest @12.50% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and also by proceeding against hypothecated tractor after giving credit

¶42

¶43

to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶49

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 28^th day of December, 2023)

¶50

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

¶51

Union Bank of India v. Mr M Kalaichelvan and Six Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr M Kalaichelvan and Six Others

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s Naviya Cashews

Bank of India versus Ravishankar

Mr Sivakumar and Mrs Rekha versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

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