Allowed

State Bank of India v. K Ramesh

DRT22 Sept 2023TA/668/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by State Bank of India for issuance of a recovery certificate against a defendant who defaulted on an agricultural term loan, permitting realization of the due sum with reduced pendente lite interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate for Rs.17,58,050/- plus 9% interest p.a. from filing date, allowing sale of schedule properties and personal liability of defendant for deficiency.

State Bank of India versus K Ramesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.668 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.441 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.668 of 2022)

¶7

State Bank of India Thanjavur Branch Represented by its Chief Manager R.M. Hospital Road Thanjavur – 613 001 …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. K. Ramesh S/o A. Krishnamoorthy North Street, Kollangarai Village Naduvur Post Thanjavur Taluk & District …Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s N.S. Revathi Counsel for 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 seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs17,58,050/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule properties.

¶13

The subject matter of the case is Agricultural Term Loan availed by the defendant from the Applicant Bank.

¶14

¶15

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant approached the applicant on 16.05.2005 for grant of Agricultural Term Loan for purchase of Mahindra Tractor & Implements and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a loan of Rs.5,50,000/- on the same day and also executed necessary loan and security documents on 16.05.2005.

¶16

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendant deposited the title deeds of the property more fully described in schedule to the OA with the applicant bank on 16.05.2005 with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same in favour of the applicant and confirmed the same by executing confirmation letter dated 17.05.2005.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that as the defendant violated the terms and conditions of sanction and committed default in repayments and failed to regularize the loan accounts despite repeated request the loan account was classified as NPA on 30.09.2013.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that after availing the loan, the defendant was irregular in remitting the loan amount. The efforts of the applicant bank to make the defendant to settle the loan did not yield any result, and hence the applicant approached this Tribunal seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate allowing recovery of the amount due in the account.

¶19

Summons taken out to the defendant returned unserved with remarks “Unclaimed” and hence the service was held sufficient. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant and on 02.06.2022, the defendant is called absent and set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 7 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-7 on 29.05.2023.

¶20

¶21

The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 07.07.2023 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶22

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶23

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendant?

¶24

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶25

These issues are considered together.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶27

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-7 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendant. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶28

¶29

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶30

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is an agricultural loan and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

¶31

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, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶32

(a) TA No.668 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶33

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.17,58,050/from the defendant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of OA till date of realization after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the schedule mentioned property and other assets of the defendant.

¶34

(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 Account.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22^nd day of September, 2023)

¶40

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

¶41

State Bank of India v. K Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. K Ramesh

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

Mrs S Saroja versus State Bank of India

S Paldurai versus Canara Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s.Sun Traders

A C Velmurugan versus City Union Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. v. Ammani

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Panneerselvam