Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr.S.Thirumeni

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/470/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed by Canara Bank against the borrowers and guarantors. Since the defendants appeared ex-parte, the claim proved based on documentary evidence. The court granted recovery of the outstanding principal and interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 68,93,849/ along with interest at 10% p.a., realization of cost, and authorization to sell schedule properties if proceeds are insufficient.

Canara Bank versus Mr.S.Thirumeni — Execution and Attachment | 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

T.A.No.470 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.129/2021–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Canara Bank,

¶6

(Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Rep. by its Divisional Manager, No.2783, South Alangam, Park Tower, First Floor, Near Thilagar Thidal, Thanjavur – 613 001. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr.S.Thirumeni,

¶9

S/o.Late Mr.Sethuvijayadevar.

¶10

Mrs.S.Krishnaswamy, W/o. Late Mr.Sethuvijayadevar.

¶11

Mr.S.Krishnaswamy, S/o.Late Mr.Sethuvijayadevar.

¶12

Mr.S.Chelladurai, S/o.Late Mr.Sethuvijayadevar.

¶13

Mr.S.Kandaswamy, S/o.Late Mr.Sethuvijayadevar.

¶14

¶15

All residing at:

¶16

No.1/111B, Vadakku Theru, Sankaranarkudikkadu Village, Thirunalloor P.O., Orathanadu, Thanjavur – 614 626.

¶17

Mrs.S.Indirani, W/o.Mr. Muthukumar, Chinnakumulai, Pappanad SO Post, Office Orathanadu, Thanjavur – 614 626.

¶18

Mr.M.Velayutham, S/o.Mr.Murugaiyan, No. 5/7A, Parangi Vetti Kadu, Ambalapattu Orathanadu, Thanjavur – 614 626. … Defendants.

¶19

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.V.Subramanian Associatez. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.68,93,849/- 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 the schedule mentioned properties.

¶22

¶23

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood

¶24

transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶25

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶26

The 1^st defendant as the borrower and defendants 2 to 6 as the mortgagers had approached the erstwhile syndicate bank, which got amalgamated with the applicant and got availed the flowing credit facilities:

¶27

i) Secured loan for Rs.4,90,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for purchase of Tractor and for construction of bore-well. The 7^th defendant stood as guarantor for the said facility.

¶28

ii) SKCC loan of Rs.90,000/- for cultivation of paddy and Rs.80,000/- for purchase of Tipper wherein also the 7^th defendant stood as guarantor.

¶29

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail. Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, mortgage of the schedule mentioned properties and hypothecation over the tractor and crops were created as being the security for repayment of the loans.

¶30

¶31

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the accounts resulting the same to be declared as NPA on 30.4.2017. The defendants had on 11.08.2011, 24.07.2014, 06.07.2017 and 30.3.2020 had issued the acknowledgment of debt in favour of Bank.

¶32

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

¶33

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 TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶34

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 13.06.2022.

¶35

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 A41 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶36

¶37

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:

¶38

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

¶39

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶40

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶41

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 credit facility is agricultural one, pendentelite and further interest is awarded at 10% p.a. (simple.)

¶42

¶43

In view of the finding as entered above

¶44

i) TA No.470/2022 stands allowed.

¶45

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 68,93,849/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Nine only) with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶46

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 proceed against.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

Rules, 1993.

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Canara Bank v. Mr.S.Thirumeni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr.S.Thirumeni

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