Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank, v. U. Sameetha

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/605/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank filed a transfer application to recover a term loan of Rs. 19,97,963 along with interest from the borrower and guarantor who had defaulted. The court found the claim valid, upheld the transfer, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.19,97,963 with future and pendentelite interest @11.45% p.a. from the date of filing the transfer application; issuance of a Recovery Certificate; allowance of cost of proceedings.

Indian Overseas Bank, versus U. Sameetha — Specific Performance | 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.605 OF 2022 (Old TA.No.17/2019-DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.2/2018–DRT-III, Chennai)

¶5

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Alangayam Branch, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore Region-2038.

¶6

… APPLICANT.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

U. Sameetha,

¶9

W/o.Athinarayanan, No. 327, Poongulam Village & Post, Mittur, Vaniyambadi Taluk.

¶10

2. G. Sakthi,

¶11

W/o/Govindan, No.280, Poongulam Village & Post, Alangayam Via, Vaniyambadi Taluk. … DEFENDANTS.

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.V.H.Vinod Pandian. Defendants : Exparte.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the

¶15

Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.19,97,963/- with further interest from the date of filing of the OA

¶16

¶17

and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The 1^st defendant being the borrower and the 2^nd defendant being the guarantor had applied for and availed a Term Loan facility for Rs. 23,75,000/- from the applicant.

¶21

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail. The defendants had agreed to pay back the amount with interest @11.45% p.a.

¶22

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation agreement and demand promissory note was executed by defendants being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶23

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA.

¶24

¶25

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. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated request, the applicant had caused to issue a lawyer notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶26

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

¶27

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 05.06.2018.

¶28

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 A 9 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶32

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

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 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. Since the transaction is a commercial one the pendentelite and future interest as allowed at the agreed rate.

¶35

In view of the finding as entered above

¶36

i) TA No.605 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶37

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.19,97,963/(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand and Nine Hundred and Sixty Three only) with future and pendentelite interest @11.45% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶43

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

¶44

Indian Overseas Bank, v. U. Sameetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank, v. U. Sameetha

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