Allowed

Union Bank of India v. G Anasuya and Another

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/380/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of an agricultural term loan default. The court awarded recovery of principal plus simple interest at 8% p.a. and permitted realization from sale of properties or personal liability of borrowers.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.14,30,518/ with 8% p.a. simple interest; realization from sale of properties or personal liability of respondents;

Union Bank of India versus G Anasuya and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.380 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.120 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.380 of 2022)

¶7

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 …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs. G. Anusuya W/o Mr. Ganesan

¶10

D. No.38, Kudiyana Theru 23, Veloor Sirugraman, Mullukudi Village Thiruvidaimarudhar Taluk

¶11

Thanjavur District – 612 001

¶12

Mr. G. Ganesan S/o Mr. Govindasamy D. No.38, Kudiyana Theru 23, Veloor Sirugraman, Mullukudi Village Thiruvidaimarudhar Taluk Thanjavur District – 612 001 …Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. S. Parthasarathy Defendants : Ex- parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,30,518/- together with interest at the rate of 12.90% per annum with half

¶16

¶17

yearly rests from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for schedule of properties..

¶18

The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶19

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows: -

¶20

The defendants approached the applicant bank for grant of Agricultural Term Loan for the purpose of purchasing Tractor and its Accessories and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.4,75,000/to the defendants vide its sanction dated 8.3.2005. The said loan is repayable in 18 half yearly installments of Rs.26,400/-. It is stated that the defendants purchased LMV Tractor (New Holland Tractors) out of the said loan funds and registered the same with the concerned transport authority and the Registration Number is TN-49 T-8749. It is also stated that the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant on 8.3.2005. The defendants deposited the title deeds of their properties more fully described in the schedule to the OA with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same.

¶21

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, but failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 14.07.2010 and the applicant also caused a legal notice on 30.07.2018.

¶22

¶23

It is contended by the applicant that 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 or to pay back the amount

¶24

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

¶25

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendants remained absent and hence were called absent and set ex-parte on 30.09.2019.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶29

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶30

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex-parte. 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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶34

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a agricultural term loan and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing and further as the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶35

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶36

(a) TA No.380 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶37

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.14,30,518/with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a., simple from the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the

¶38

¶39

pendency of OA, and also by selling the schedule mentioned properties and other assets of the defendants.

¶40

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due under the Loan Accounts.

¶41

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.

¶42

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Union Bank of India v. G Anasuya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. G Anasuya and Another

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