Allowed

Canara Bank, v. Mrs. Madhavi

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a transfer application filed by Canara Bank (formerly Syndicate Bank) to recover a car loan of Rs. 18,41,331.41 from the defendant. The court found the claim well within the limitation period and admissible, permitting recovery from the borrower and her assets including the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the transfer application; permitted recovery of Rs. 18,41,331.41 with future interest at 10.15% p.a. from defendant and the sale of hypothecated vehicle.

Canara Bank, versus Mrs. Madhavi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.397 OF 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.356/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Canara Bank,

¶6

(Previously Syndicate Bank), Chennai Egmore Branch, IFSC CODE:SYNB0006014, 16, Police Commissioner Office Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008. Rep. by its Chief Manager. … APPLICANT

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs. Madhavi W/o. Nandakumar PAN: CVKPM3699A Residing At No.198/613, Annai Sathya Nagar Ambattur, Chennai. . … DEFENDANT Counsel for Applicant : M/s.A.Ameen. Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶9

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

¶10

of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.18,41,331.41 with

¶11

¶12

further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant and her assets.

¶13

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

¶14

The case of the applicant is that the defendant being the borrower applied for and got sanctioned a car loan for Rs.16,15,730/- from the erst while Syndicate Bank. The facility was availed for purchasing a Terrano XV diesel vehicle.

¶15

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail in 84 monthly installments of Rs.23,589/- arrived at by calculating interest @10.35% per annum with monthly rest.

¶16

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the vehicle was marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶17

Even though the defendant had obliged herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, she failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 30.09.2016.

¶18

¶19

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting her to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated request the applicant had on 03.12.2018 caused to issue lawyer notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant had 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 cost.

¶21

Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, she was set exparte on 04.03.2020. After the amalgamation of the Syndicate Bank with the applicant, the same got substituted place of erst while Syndicate Bank.

¶22

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced ExhibitsA1 to A7 and got the same marked.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

12.The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remains exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and disputed. 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 her assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the loan is availed for the purchase of a car, the interest as claimed is allowed.

¶29

13.In view of the finding as entered above

¶30

i) TA No.397/2022 stands allowed.

¶31

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 18,41,331.41/- (Eighteen Lakhs Forty One Thousands Three Hundred and Thirty One Forty One Paise only) with future and pendentalate interest @10.15% with monthly rates

¶32

¶33

from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant personally and also by selling hypothecated vehicle after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶34

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

¶35

iv) 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.

¶36

14.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.

¶37

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 30^th day of November, 2023)

¶38

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

¶39

Canara Bank, v. Mrs. Madhavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank, v. Mrs. Madhavi

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 Bank versus M/s. Royal Agro and Diary Limited

M/s. Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/s V.S Enterprises

Thangamani oil Stores versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India, versus R.M.Ezhilarasu

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr.S.Rengaraj

Idbi Bank versus Ramajayam R