Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr.N.Vijaykumar

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/696/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a transfer application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 32,34,575/- from a defaulting borrower, permitting recovery at 9% simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed transfer of application; permitted recovery of Rs. 32,34,575/- with interest at 9% simple; issued Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mr.N.Vijaykumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.696 OF 2023

¶5

(Old TA.No.202/2019-DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.562/2017–DRT-III, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Chinnasalem Branch, Salem Main Road, Chinnasalem.

¶7

… APPLICANT.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr. Vijayakumar, S/o.Mr.Narayanasamy, No.42, Vijayapuram, 2^nd Street Chinnasalem , Chinnasalem Tk, Villupuram District.

¶10

Also at

¶11

M/s. Govindasamy Godown, Maravanatham Road, Chinnasalem Taluk, Villupuram District. … DEFENDANT.

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.C.P.R.Kamaraj. Defendant : Exparte. ……

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the

¶15

Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.32,34,575/-with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and

¶16

¶17

also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant and also

¶18

by sale of schedule mentioned hypothecated rice stocks.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

The defendant had applied for and procured the following credit

¶22

facilities :

¶23

Credit Facility	Amount
Trade Demand Loan 1.	Rs.13,20,000/-,
Trade Demand Loan 2.	Rs.14,40,000/-

¶24

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail and the facilities are availed against Commodity Based Ware House Receipts.

¶25

The applicant contents that the defendant though obliged to pay back the amount and executed necessary loan documents including demand promissory note and agreement creating hypothecation of Rice stock had failed to make the repayment resulting the account in default. The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant

¶26

¶27

requesting him to pay back the amount and despite the same, no effort

¶28

was made by the defendant to pay back the same.

¶29

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant 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.

¶30

Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 29.01.2018

¶31

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 A9 and got the same marked on 10.04.2019.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains

¶37

¶38

uncontroverted and undisputed as the defendant does not choose to

¶39

appear and contest the matter.

¶40

The evidence put forth by the applicant was found admissible and from the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as stated in the OA is disbursed and the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and his assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. It is evident that as on date an amount of Rs.32,34,575/- being the total due in two accounts.

¶41

Taking note of the fact that the applicant had arrived at the OA claim by calculating interest at agreed rate and that the credit facility is for agricultural purpose, this Tribunal is of the view that pendentelite and future interest can be awarded at a reduced rate 9% (simple).

¶42

In view of the finding as entered above

¶43

i) TA.No.696 OF 2023 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.32,34,575/- (Rupees Thirty Two lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Five only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till realization after giving credit to all the

¶44

¶45

amount recovered and received during the pendency of

¶46

the TA.

¶47

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

¶48

iv) 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.

¶49

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

¶50

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶51

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

¶52

Sd./-

¶53

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

¶54

State Bank of India v. Mr.N.Vijaykumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr.N.Vijaykumar

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