Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s.Os Ceramics & Refractories

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/764/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of debt, permitting the recovery of Rs.15,13,770 with future and pendentelite interest. The schedule properties were ordered to be sold, with a Recovery Certificate issued for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.15,13,770 with interest @ 11.70% p.a.; sale of schedule property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus M/s.Os Ceramics & Refractories — Specific Performance | 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. 764 OF 2023

¶5

(Old TA No.518/2018-DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA No.279/2018-DRT-III, Chennai)

¶6

Canara Bank, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Ulundurpet Main road, Puvanur Branch, Virudhachalam Tk – 606104.

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s. OS Ceramics & Refractories, Rep.by Proprietrix: V.Oormila, No.186/1, Ulundurpet Road, Periyavadavadi Village, Vijayamanagaram Post, Virudhachalam Taluk.

¶10

Mrs. V.Oormila, D/o. K.Valluvan, NO/102, Soundaracholapuram, Pennadam, Tittagudi, Cuddalore.

¶11

Mrs. P. Nagammal, W/o. Pavadai, NO.81, Main Road, Kammapuram Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. … DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.S.Pandurangan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.15,13,770/-with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and by sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

The 1^st defendant represented by 2^nd defendant being the borrower and 3^rd defendant being the guarantor/mortgager had applied for and availed the a credit facility to the tune of Rs.21,50,000/- under Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Program.

¶19

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶20

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 3^rd defendant had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule properties. Apart from execution of the necessary loan

¶21

¶22

documents, hypothecation over the machineries were marked as security loan.

¶23

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 19.01.2018.

¶24

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to repay the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount.

¶25

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendants had 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 cost.

¶26

Even though the defendants entered appearance, no reply statement

¶27

was filed and due to their continuous absence, they were set exparte on 03.10.2023.

¶28

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 A13 and got the same marked.

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the OA claim arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate with monthly rest and the same is not declined, this Tribunal is of that the view the future as well as pendentelite interest can be awarded at simple rate.

¶35

¶36

In view of the finding as entered above

¶37

i) TA.No.764/2023 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover the amount of Rs.15,13,770/- with future and pendentelite interest @ 11.70% (pa)(simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶38

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Canara Bank v. M/s.Os Ceramics & Refractories

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s.Os Ceramics & Refractories

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