Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mrs.Vasantha

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed by the bank to recover an outstanding agricultural loan amount from the defendants and their properties, granting pendentilite and future interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 10,75,104/- with 10% p.a. interest from date of filing; sale of schedule properties; issuance of recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Mrs.Vasantha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.639 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.89/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Union Bank of India Rep. by its Branch Manager, Mr.K.N.Srinivasa Rao, Kumbakonam Branch, Post Box No.47 ‘Abu Tahir Complex’, 27/14, Nageswaran Sannadhi Street, Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs.Vasantha (Reported died)

¶9

Mr.K.Singaravelu S/o.Late Krishnamurthy, No.52, South Street, Tholuvur Post, Valangaiman, Kumbakonam - 612 001. … Defendants.

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy. 1^st Defendant : Deceased. 2^nd Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶11

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery

¶12

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.10,75,104/-

¶13

¶14

with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants and also by sale of the schedule mentioned properties.

¶15

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

¶16

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶17

The defendants have approached the applicant and got sanctioned a Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.3,67,900/- for the purchase of tractor and accessories.

¶18

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 in 18 half yearly installments of Rs.20,500/- arrived at by calculating interest at 10.75%.

¶19

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties. Over and above the same, hypothecation over the Tractor was also marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶20

¶21

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 06.07.2011.

¶22

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 requests, the applicant had on 30.07.2018 caused to issue a lawyer notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶23

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.

¶24

The 1^st defendant reported dead and a memo has been filed stating that the 2^nd defendant is the only legal representative of the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant was set exparte on 09.12.2019.

¶25

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 A 12 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

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 properties). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is agricultural one, pendentilite and future interest is awarded at 10% p.a. (simple).

¶32

¶33

In view of the finding as entered above

¶34

i) TA No.639 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶35

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.10,75,104/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred Four only) with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the 2^nd defendant after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶36

iii) The schedule properties to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the 2^nd defendant and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Rules, 1993.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Union Bank of India v. Mrs.Vasantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mrs.Vasantha

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