Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr.Thavamani & Another

DRT28 Dec 2023TA/626/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of an agricultural loan of Rs. 23,89,869/- with 9% simple interest. The schedule property was ordered to be sold, with the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor liable only to the extent of their inherited estate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,89,869/- with 9% simple interest; sale of schedule property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Mr.Thavamani & Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 28^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.626 OF 2022

¶4

(Old TA.No.500/2018–DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.473/2017–DRT-III, Chennai)

¶5

Union Bank of India, Kumbakonam Branch, Nageswaran Sannadhi Street, Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. Thavamani, S/o.Kathaiya Kadavarayar, Thenkarai Kuchipalayam, Mathur (Post), Alankuly (Via), Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur District – 612 801.

¶9

Mrs. Saroja, (Since Deceased) W/o.Namasivayam.

¶10

Mr. Gurumoorthy, S/o.Mr.Namasivayam, Geetha Nagar, Madhakkottai Road, Thanjavur Town Thanjavur Taluk & District.

¶11

Mrs.Revathi, D/o.Mr.Namasivayam, Geetha Nagar, Madhakkottai Road, Thanjavur Town Thanjavur Taluk & District. (As ordered by the Hon’ble Tribunal in I.A.No.134/2018, dt.24.07.2018, the amendment is carried out).

¶12

… Defendants.

¶13

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 : Exparte. 2^nd Defendant : Deceased.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.23,89,869/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of the schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

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

¶18

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶19

The 1^st defendant being the borrower and 2^nd defendant being the guarantor had applied for and availed an agricultural loan facility to the tune of Rs. 11,20,000/- from the applicant.

¶20

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.

¶21

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule properties, and also executed a registered memorandum of deposit of

¶22

¶23

title deeds. Over and above execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation agreement was also executed being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶24

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 on 20.05.2011.

¶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 on 22.12.2015 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 reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶27

Even as the 1^st defendant failed to enter appearance, D1 was set exparte on 21.03.2019. Since 2^nd defendant expired legal heirs of 2^nd defendant

¶28

¶29

was impleaded as 3^rd and 4^th defendants. The additional defendants D3 and D4 were set exparte on 21.03.2019.

¶30

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A29 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

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 TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the

¶36

¶37

applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is agricultural purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @ 9% (simple).

¶38

In view of the finding as entered above

¶39

i) TA No.626/2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.23,89,869/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousands Eight Hundred and Sixty Nine only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the 1^st defendant after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶40

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against However the liability of defendants 3 and 4 are limited to the estate they had inherited from deceased Saroja, 2^nd defendant.

¶41

¶42

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recover of the amount as per the above terms.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Union Bank of India v. Mr.Thavamani & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr.Thavamani & Another

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