Allowed

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), v. Mr.K.C Samu (Borrower), (Deceased)

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Transfer Application seeking recovery of debt. Finding the claim uncontroverted due to exparte status of respondents, the court permitted recovery from principal borrowers and guarantors, including assets inherited by their legal representatives, ordered sale of mortgaged properties, and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,05,259/- plus interest at 9% simple; sale of schedule properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate; costs allowed.

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), versus Mr.K.C Samu… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.628 OF 2022 (Old TA.No.90/2019-DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.224/2018–DRT-III, Chennai)

¶4

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Vaniyambadi Branch Rep.by its Chief Manager, Regional office Chennai-II, MS Centre, 459/1, First Floor, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018. … APPLICANT.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Mr.K.C Samu (Borrower), (Deceased) S/o MR.Chinnapayan @ Veerasami Gounder, Kurusilapattur Village and Post, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore Dist.

¶7

Mr.Veeraraghavan.S. (Co-borrower), S/o.Mr.Samu K.C., Kurusilapattur Village and Post, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore Dist.

¶8

Mr. Jadayappan (Co-borrower) S/o.Mr.Samu K.C., Kurusilapattur Village and Post, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore Dist.

¶9

Mr.Perumal. S. (Co-borrower), (Deceased) S/o.Mr.Samu K.C., Kurusilapattur Village and Post,

¶10

¶11

Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore Dist.

¶12

Mr. Seittu.R. (Guarantor). (Deceased) S/o.Mr.Raghu, Kurusilapattur Village and Post, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore Dist.

¶13

Mrs.Jamuna, W/o.Mr.K.C.Samu.

¶14

Ms.Banumathi, D/o.Mr.K.C.Samu.

¶15

Ms.Gayathri, D/o.Mr.K.C.Samu.

¶16

Mrs.Yasodha, W/o.Mr.Seithu.

¶17

10.Mr.Anbarasu, S/o.Mr.Seithu.

¶18

Defendants 6 to 10 Residing at Kurusilapattur Village and Post, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore Dist. … DEFENDANTS. (Amended as per the order of this Hon’ble Tribunal passed on 29.09.2020. ) Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.V.Subramanian Associatez. Defendants 1, 4 & 5 : Deceased. Defendants 2, 3, 6 to 10 : Exparte. ……

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the

¶21

Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of

¶22

¶23

Rs.25,05,259/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants 2, 3 and 6 to 10 jointly and severally and primarily by proceedings against the schedule mentioned mortgaged properties.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

The defendants 1 to 4 being the borrowers and 5^th defendant had applied for and availed Term loan/Tractor/Trailer loan for

¶27

Rs.6,20,000/- from erstwhile Syndicate Bank.

¶28

Credit facility	Amount
Cash credit	Rs. 3,50,000
Term loan	Rs. 4,25,000

¶29

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of

¶30

necessary loan documents by defendants 1 to 5 obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶31

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents the defendants 1 to 4 had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties.

¶32

¶33

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 31.03.2011.

¶34

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to repay 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 02.08.2017 cause to issue lawyer notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶35

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 OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost. As the erst while syndicate Bank got amalgamated with Canara Bank, the later got substituted in place of former.

¶36

Even as the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants though entered appearance had failed to file written statement and failed to appear resulting them set exparte on 11.07.2023. Even as the 6^th to 8^th defendants who are the additional LRs of 1^st defendant apart from 2^nd and 3^rd defendant and 9^th and 10^th defendants who are the LRs of 5^th defendant failed to enter appearance, and hence they were set exparte on 11.07.2023.

¶37

¶38

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 A12 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶42

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶43

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 (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Taking note of the fact that the applicant had arrived at the OA claim by calculating interest at agreed

¶44

¶45

rate, this Tribunal if of the view that pendentelite and future interest

¶46

can be awarded at a reduced rate of 9% (simple).

¶47

In view of the finding as entered above

¶48

i) TA.No.628 OF 2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.25,05,259/(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Nine only) with future and pendentilite interest @9% (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶49

iii) The schedule properties 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. The defendants 6 to 8 are liable to the extent of assets inherited from the deceased borrower, D1 and defendants 9 and 10 are liable to the extent of assets inherited from the deceased guarantor, D5.

¶50

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

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)

¶54

Rules, 1993.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), v. Mr.K.C Samu (Borrower), (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), v. Mr.K.C Samu (Borrower), (Deceased)

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