Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mrs. J. Uma Maheswari

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant failed to repay a vehicle loan to Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank). Upon transfer to DRT-II, court found applicant's evidence uncontroverted and authorized recovery of outstanding dues with interest, allowing the schedule vehicle to be sold for realization.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.18,99,139.61 with future interest; leave to proceed against schedule vehicle; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Mrs. J. Uma Maheswari — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.478 OF 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.229/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

M/s.Canara Bank, (Formerly Known as Syndicate Bank), Egomore Branch, Rep.by its Chief Manager, No. 16, Police Commissioner Office Road Egmore, Chennai-600008. … APPLICANT.

¶7

(Amended as per order dt.13.01.2023 in memo Dy.No.1980/21).

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mrs. J. Uma Maheswari, W/o. Janarthanam, Pan NO. AEPU4963L, No.199/2, A1, Siranjeevi Nagar, Kavarapalayam, Avadi, Chennai-600054. … DEFENDANT. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.V.Suthakar. Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶10

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.18,99,139.61 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA

¶11

and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant.

¶12

¶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 as follows:-

¶15

The defendant had approached the erstwhile Syndicate Bank and availed a Synd vehicle loan for Rs.14,00,000/- for purchase of a Honda City Vehicle which is scheduled in the OA.

¶16

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 /-.

¶17

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

¶18

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 30.08.2016.

¶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.

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

Despite issuance of summons there was no representation for the defendant and hence defendant was set exparte on 04.03.2019. Since Syndicate bank got amalgamated with Canara Bank, later got substituted in place of the former.

¶23

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 Exhibits A1 to A5 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶24

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

¶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

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

¶29

¶30

applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as stated in the TA is disbursed and the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant 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 claim is a vehicle loan interest is awarded as per the claim.

¶31

In view of the finding as entered above:

¶32

i) TA.No.478 of 2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.18,99,139.61 (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine and Sixty One paisa only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 10.15% PA with monthly rests from the date of filing of TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA

¶33

iii) The schedule vehicle to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendant and her assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

Sd./-

¶40

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

¶41

Canara Bank v. Mrs. J. Uma Maheswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mrs. J. Uma Maheswari

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