Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Veeramani

DRT28 Dec 2023TA/61/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a vehicle loan outstanding. The court rejected monthly rests on interest due to a fall in rates and ordered recovery of the principal plus simple interest at 9% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Remand the matter to the applicant for realization of Rs.14,63,624 plus simple interest at 9% p.a. from the filing date until full realization.

Union Bank of India versus Veeramani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 28^th day of December, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.61 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.826 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.61 of 2022)

¶7

Union Bank of India

¶8

Formerly Corporation Bank, Madur Branch Represented by its Senior Manager Mr. K.T. Vaiyra Kumar Veeracholapuram, Durgam Main Road Madur Post, Madur – 606 206 Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District …Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. S. Veeramani S/o Mr. Sambanda Mudaliar No.29/C, Chidambaram Pillai Street Kallakurichi PO & Taluk – 606 202

¶11

Mr. V. Vinoth, S/o Veeramani

¶12

No.29/C, Chidambaram Pillai Street Kallakurichi PO & Taluk – 606 202

¶13

Mr. C. Senthilkumar S/o Mr. B. Chinnasamy Old Door No.9/2, Durugam Main Road Kallakurichi PO & Taluk – 606 202 …Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s A. Arun Babu Defendants : Ex- parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,63,624/- together with interest at the rate of 14.50% per annum with

¶17

¶18

monthly rests plus 2% penal interest from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

¶19

The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶20

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

¶21

The defendants approached the applicant for grant of Corp Mobile Loan and considering the said request the applicant vide sanction dated 5.2.2007 sanctioned a sum of Rs.3,37,500/- for purchase of Maruti Versa DX Car and the said loan is repayable in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.8506/- each. The defendants executed necessary loan and security documents on 5.2.2007. The defendants despite acknowledging the loan on 31.12.2009, 28.12.2012, 08.09.2015 and 17.05.2018, had defaulted in repayments and failed to clear the outstanding dues despite repeated demands.

¶22

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, but had failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 05.10.2019.

¶23

It is contended by the applicant that 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 or to pay back the amount. It is stated that as no repayment was

¶24

¶25

forthcoming despite repeated requests, the applicant issued recall notice on 21.06.2018 to all the defendants but in vain.

¶26

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant 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 costs.

¶27

The defendants remained absent and hence were called absent and set ex-parte on 10.01.2023.

¶28

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶31

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶32

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶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 remained ex-parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a vehicle loan and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing and further as the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶38

13.. In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan and the defaults committed by the defendants, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶39

(a) TA No.61 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶40

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.14,63,624/with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a., simple from the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the hypotheca, if any, and other assets of the defendants.

¶41

¶42

¶43

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.

¶44

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶45

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.

¶46

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28^th day of December, 2023)

¶47

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

¶48

Union Bank of India v. Veeramani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Veeramani

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s Naviya Cashews

Bank of India versus Ravishankar

Mr Sivakumar and Mrs Rekha versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

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