Allowed

M/s Canara Bank (Formerly known as Syndicate Bank) v. Mrs. a. Nithya

DRT28 Dec 2023TA/73/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.13.51 lakh principal with simple interest at 9% p.a. from the filing date, as the defendant appeared ex-parte and the loan disbursement was uncontroverted.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.13,51,319.88p with simple interest at 9% p.a. from filing date; authorization to issue Recovery Certificate.

M/s Canara Bank (Formerly known as Syndicate Bank) versus Mrs… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 28^th day of December, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.73 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.361 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.73 of 2022)

¶6

M/s Canara Bank (Formerly known as Syndicate Bank) Egmore Branch Rep. by its Chief Manager S. Balasubramaniam No.16, Police Commissioner Office Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. A. Nithya No.14, Flat No.A2 Santhosh Bai Street Maruti Nagar Phase 2 Noombal, Ayyappan Thangal Chennai – 600 077 …Defendant

¶9

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.13,51,319.88p together with interest at the rate of 9.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for schedule of properties..

¶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 claiming to be running the business of transport service allied activities approached the applicant bank in the year 2015 for grant of credit facility for improvement of his business and the applicant considering the said request granted Synd Vehicle Loan of Rs.9,60,000/- for purchase of Maruti ERTIGA ZDI, No.TN-12 J-9549 bearing Engine No.D13A5150415 and Chassis No.MA3FLEB1S00339361. The defendant having availed the credit facility executed loan documents on 29.9.2015. The loan account was restructured on 11.3.2016 at the request of the defendant and the defendant executed necessary loan documents on 11.3.2016.

¶16

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, but failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 30.12.2016.

¶17

It is contended by the applicant that the applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount.

¶18

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.

¶19

¶20

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendant remained absent and hence was called absent and set ex-parte on 30.12.2016.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶24

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

¶25

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶27

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.

¶28

¶29

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a Vehicle loan and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing 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.

¶30

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: -

¶31

(a) TA No.73 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶32

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.13,51,319.88p 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.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

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 28^th day of December, 2023)

¶40

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

¶41

M/s Canara Bank (Formerly known as Syndicate Bank) v. Mrs. a. Nithya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Canara Bank (Formerly known as Syndicate Bank) v. Mrs. a. Nithya

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