Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. D. Durairaj

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/634/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II, Chennai allowed the applicant bank's application under the RDB Act to recover an outstanding agricultural loan of approximately Rs. 29.53 lakh. The court acknowledged the loan's disbursement and classified it as unrebutted. While reducing the interest burden from monthly rests to simple interest at 8% p.a. due to falling rates, the court authorized recovery from the defendant's properties

What did the court decide?

Realization of aggregate sum Rs. 29,53,570 with simple interest @ 8% p.a., from sale of schedule properties and defendant's other assets, plus a recovery certificate to be issued.

Canara Bank versus Mr. D. Durairaj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.634 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.417 of 2018 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.634 of 2023)

¶7

Canara Bank Arakkonam Branch Represented by its Chief Manager No.14, Thirumalai Achari Street, Arakkonam Vellore District – 631 011 …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. D. Durairaj S/o Dharuman No.3-A, Puthu Streeet, Mettu Arumbakkam Village Nagavedu Post, Nemeli Taluk Arakkonam, Vellore District – 631 002 …Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s M. Muthukumaran Defendant : Ex- parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.29,53,570/- comprising a sum of Rs.25,98,725/- together with interest at the rate of 14.20% per annum with half yearly rests being the amount due under Farm Machinery Loan Account No.1266856014412 and a sum of Rs.3,54,845/- together with interest at the rate of 15.95% per annum with half yearly rests plus 2% penal interest from the date of filing of the application till

¶13

¶14

the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and also by proceeding against schedule of properties..

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

The defendant approached the applicant for grant of Farm Machinery Loan of Rs.5,82,000/- for purchase of Agricultural equipments viz., Tractors & implements and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a Farm Machinery Loan of Rs.5,82,000/- vide sanction dated 20.03.2005. The said amount was repayable in 14 half yearly installments of Rs.41,600/- and the 15^th installment of Rs.41,250/-. The defendant executed necessary loan document on 20.03.2005 and also deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned properties with the applicant on 23.03.2005, with an intention to create equitable mortgage in favour of the applicant bank. Further, at the request of the defendant, the applicant vide sanction dated 22.06.2005 sanctioned Kisan Credit Card Scheme Limit of Rs.50,000/- and the defendant executed necessary loan document on 22.06.2005. The said facility was renewed vide sanction dated 20.07.2007.

¶18

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 23.09.2016.

¶19

¶20

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 defendant to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount and hence the applicant issued Lawyer’s Notice on 17.03.2017.

¶21

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.

¶22

The defendant remained absent and hence was called absent and set ex-parte on 04.03.2019.

¶23

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-35 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶26

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

¶27

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶28

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained ex-parte. 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 defendant and his assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶31

In view of the fact that the subject loan is an agricultural term 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.

¶32

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, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶33

(a) TA No.634 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶34

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.29,53,570/with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a., simple, from the date of filing of the OA till realization from the defendant, after deducting all the

¶35

¶36

amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the schedule mentioned properties and other assets of the defendant.

¶37

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due under the Loan Accounts.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 29^th day of December, 2023)

¶42

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

¶43

Canara Bank v. Mr. D. Durairaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. D. Durairaj

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 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

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari