Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhagawath Singh

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/689/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a vehicle loan. Court adjusted interest rates from compound to simple at 9% and directed issuance of a recovery certificate against the defendant's assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.12,63,349.92 with simple interest at 9% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; costs of proceedings.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhagawath Singh — 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.689 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.260 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.689 of 2022)

¶7

M/s Canara Bank Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank Egmore Branch Rep. by its Chief Manager, R. Indumathi No.16, Police Commissioner Office Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Bhagawath Singh S/o N. Nalla Sethupathi No.19/1, Thiru Nagar, 19^th Street Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 …Defendant Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s V. Suthakar Defendant : Ex- parte

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

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 a sum of Rs.12,63,349.22p with further interest at the rate of 9.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for schedule of property.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

The defendant, engaged in the business of transport service and allied activities, approached the then Syndicate Bank in 2015 for grant of credit facilities and the erstwhile Syndicate Bank sanctioned Synd Vehicle Loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on 10.09.2015 for purchase of Honda City 1.5, Regn. No.TN-02/ BL-0009 and the defendant executed necessary loan documents on 10.09.2015. The said loan was repayable in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.15,339/commencing from 31.10.2015 till 30.09.2022. It is stated that the account was restructured due to flood in the year 2915 on 14.03.2016 and the defendant executed necessary documents on 2016.

¶16

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 30.12.2016.

¶17

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.

¶18

The defendant remained absent and hence was set ex-parte on 22.06.2013.

¶19

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-6 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶23

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

¶24

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶26

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.

¶27

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a loan facility availed by the defendant for purchasing a vehicle and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the OA 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.

¶28

¶29

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: -

¶30

(a) TA No.689 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶31

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.12,63,349.92p with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a., simple from the defendant, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the hypotheca and other assets of the defendant.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhagawath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhagawath Singh

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