Allowed

Canara Bank v. G Kalayanasundaram

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/622/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate of Rs. 23.68 lakhs plus interest, noting the loan was for purchasing an agricultural tractor and modifying the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate for Rs. 23,68,344/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 10% simple from filing date recoverable by sale of schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus G Kalayanasundaram — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.622 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.112 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.622 of 2022)

¶7

Canara Bank, Having it Registered office at No.112, J C Road, Bangalore – 560 002 Having one of the branch office at, Vaniyambadi Town, Vellore Dist, Represented by its authorized signatory, Mr.T.M.Raveendar …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.	G. Kalyanasundaram, S/o. Gillaman Gounder, Malaireddiyur Village, Beemakulam Post, Vaniyambadi Tk, Vellore Dist
2.	G. Dhanasekaran, S/o. Gillman Gounder, Malaireddiyur Village, Beemakulam Post, Vaniyambadi Tk, Vellore Dist		…Defendants
	Counsel for the Applicant Bank Counsel for Defendants	: : Shreelaw Services Ex-parte

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This Original Application in short OA is filed seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.23,68,344/- with further interest from the date of filing of the OA.

¶12

The defendant approached the applicant and availed a tractor loan for the purchase of a Swanaj 735 and in lieu of the credit facility so availed, the

¶13

¶14

defendant had created equitable mortgage of the immovable properties. It is also stated that acknowledgment of debt was also issued by the respondent on 11.5.2009, 5.8.2010, 24.4.2012, 1.8.2013, 3.3.2016 and 3.7.2018.

¶15

It is further started that as the defendant failed to repay a lawyer notice was issued 10.2.2017 and despite the same, no repayment was made forcing the applicant to file this OA.

¶16

This OA was originally filed before DRT-I where in summons was taken out and the defendant were served. The defendants were called absent and set exparte on 15.5.2019. The applicant and let in evidence through AW1 who filed the proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A12

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and considered the claim put forth in the OA and considered the documents produced by the applicant. The main issues that requires to be decided is to whether the applicant had proved the OA claim and as to what orders as to be passed. Since both there issues are interrelated the same was gone into and decided together.

¶18

Ext.A1 evidences the case of the applicant that the defendant had approached the applicant for the facility. The creation of mortgage is evidenced by ExtA2 and terms of lending is evidenced by Ext.A3. The contention of the applicant as to the acknowledgment are proved by Ext.A4 to A10. The demand made by the applicant to prove by Ext.A11. The Ext.A12 statement of account evidences the defaults in the account and that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account.

¶19

¶20

The documents produced by the applicant are proved to be advisable in evidence. It is evident that there is no capitalization of penal interest is for purchasing a tractor which is for agriculture activity and the applicant had levied and changed interest at agreed rate till the date of filing of OA, this OA is allowed with reduced rate of interest. However as the credit facility.

¶21

In the result

¶22

i) TA 622 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶23

ii) The applicant allowed to realize the sum of Rs.23,68,344/- with pendelite and future interest @ 10 (simple) from the date of filing of the OA and recover the same by proceeding against and selling the schedule properties.

¶24

iii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy of the due, the defendants are liable to be proceeded penalty and their assets can also be proceeded with.

¶25

iv) 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.

¶26

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21) of RDB Act r/w Rules 16 of DRT (procedure) rules.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Canara Bank v. G Kalayanasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. G Kalayanasundaram

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