Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar

DRT30 Oct 2023TA/496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery certificate application filed by Union Bank of India for Rs. 33,67,226 with interest. The Tribunal found the evidence uncontroverted and sanctioned recovery through sale of the mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate for Rs.33,67,226 with 10% per annum simple interest; recovery via sale of mortgaged properties.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of October, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.496 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.318 of 2018 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.496 of 2023)

¶7

Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Mrs. Malathi Ravikumar, Vadapalani Branch, No.14, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar, S/o. Mr. Chandrasekar, No.12, PRV Nagar, Guduvanchery – 603 202

¶11

Also at Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar, S/o. Mr. Chandrasekar, Plot No.95, Flat No.A-1, Second Floor, Bharathi Apartments, Veerabadra Nagar, Thailavaram village, (Near Adyar Ananda Bhavan Hotal) Guduvencherry – 603 202

¶12

Also at Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar, S/o. Mr. Chandrasekar, No.46, Flat No.A, Krish Ac Asia Ganga Nagar, II Street, Jafferkharpet, Chennai – 600 083

¶13

Mrs. K. Saavitha, W/o. Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar, No.12, PRV Nagar, Guduvanchery – 603 202 …Defendants Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mrs. Sheela Venkatesh Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This Original Application herein after been referred as OA is filed under section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1983, seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.33,67,226 with future annual interest @ 10% per annum from 12.2.2018.

¶17

The defendant had approached the applicant bank for a Housing loan for Rs.35,50,000/- for the purchase of a flat 1020 sq.feet in the 2^nd floor together with undivided share of land measuring 498 sq.feet in and out of 1932 sq.feet on eastern portion of plot no.95, Bharathi Apartments. The credit facility was sanctioned vide the sanction letter 14.8.2015. The defendant had agreed to pay back the amount in 338 equal monthly installments. It is also stated that apart from creating mortgage over the schedule properties, the applicant had also executed necessary loan documentary reiterating their liability to pay back the amount.

¶18

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendant had in violation of terms of agreement had committed defaults in repayment. It is also stated despite repeated demands the defendants failed to make repayment and hence this OA is filed seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for the due amount.

¶19

Summons was taken out and the same was returned “no such addressee” resulting summons being taken out through paper publication. Even as there was no appearance despite summons being take out there was no appearance for the defendants and hence they were declared exparte.

¶20

¶21

The applicant had filed their proof affidavit in support of the OA claim and produced documentary evidences which according to them will sustainable the OA claim. The documents produced by the applicant were marked through Aw1, as ExtsA1 to A16.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions of the applicant in the light of documents produced by them.

¶23

The sanction letter Ext.A2 the loan agreement ExtA3 along with Ext.A4 Demand Promissory Note proves the availment of the credit facility. The letter of under taking and the construction agreement produced by the applicant all one in conformity with the pleadings of the applicant Ext.A10 and A13 evidence that mortgage had been created over the schedule properties in lieu of security for the repayment of the loan. Ext.A11 lawyer notice and Ext.A15 statement accounts proves that the loan is in default and the amount claimed as outstanding in the OA is the actual amount due. It also evidences that there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶24

The evidence so tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted leaving this Tribunal to accept the contentions of the applicant as the documents which were produced and found admissible were in conformity with the pleadings and sufficient to prove the applicant’s care.

¶25

Therefore on the above discussions this Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is entitled for the orders as sought for in the SA allowing recovery of the amount due in the account, which could be allowed to be recovered by proceeding against and selling the schedule properties. Taking note of the

¶26

¶27

fact that the applicant is only claiming interest at agreed rate, this Tribunal is allowing the rate of interest as claimed.

¶28

In the result

¶29

i) TA.496 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) The applicant is permitted to recover Rs.33,67,226 with further interest @ 10% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till realization after giving credit to all the repayment made by and recovered by the applicant during the pendency of OA.

¶31

iii) The amount so allowed to be recovered could be recovered by proceedings against and selling the schedule properties.

¶32

iv) A recovery certificate to be drawn in terms of above and issued to the Recovery officer to recover the amount.

¶33

v) Applicant is also allowed cost of the proceedings for which a cost memo is to be filed in 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Union Bank of India v. Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. K.C. Mohan Kumar

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

Rajakumari versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus I. Paramasivam

Canara Bank versus Ms Caxton Graphics

Karnataka Bank Ltd., versus Mr. Govindappa

Indian Overseas Bank versus E. Rajesh, S/o. Mr. Eyalarasan

P Mathialagan versus Bank of India