Allowed

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Mr.S.Saravanan

DRT28 Dec 2023TA/708/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an application by IDBI Bank for recovery of dues against a defendant who failed to repay an agricultural loan. With the defendant in ex-parte, the court found the claim substantiated and allowed recovery from specified properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 27,42,289/- with future interest @ 12% p.a. ordered from defendant's assets including schedule properties via sale.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr.S.Saravanan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 28^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.708 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.179/2022–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

IDBI Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam Branch, Premier Towers, No.2, Lakshmi Vilas Street, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu – 607 001. Represented by its Manager/ Letter of Authority Holder (IFSC Code:IBKL0000369). … Applicant. Vs. Mr.S.Saravanan, S/o.Mr.C.Saminathan, Residing at No.459, Agraharam, Nagarasampettai, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District – 612 605. (PAN No.DONPS5664Q) … Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.E.Vijayaraghavan. Defendant : Exparte.

¶6

¶7

ORDER

¶8

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.27,42,289/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant and his assets including the sale of the schedule mentioned properties.

¶9

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

¶10

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶11

The defendant approached the applicant for Crop Cash credit facility for Rs.20,00,000/- from the applicant.

¶12

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Even though the defendant had obliged himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, he failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 11.01.2021.

¶16

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting him to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. The defendant had issued revival letters acknowledging the liability.

¶17

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.

¶18

Even though the defendant entered appearance he had not filed written statement and subsequently as the defendant failed to enter appearance he was set exparte on 26.04.2023.

¶19

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 16 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶20

¶21

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:

¶22

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

¶23

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶25

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 credit facility is agricultural one pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 12% p.a. (simple).

¶26

¶27

In view of the finding as entered above

¶28

i) TA No.708 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.27,42,289/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Nine only) with future and pendentelite interest @12% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA by proceedings against ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule mentioned properties.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Rules, 1993.

¶37

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 28^th day of December, 2023)

¶38

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

¶39

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Mr.S.Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Mr.S.Saravanan

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s Naviya Cashews

Bank of India versus Ravishankar

Mr Sivakumar and Mrs Rekha versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

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