Allowed

Union Bank of India v. . Dr. v.C.Vandana

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/83/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for issuance of a recovery certificate of Rs. 65,44,476/- with interest against the defendants. The bank proved the loan facility and arrears, satisfying the liability and entitlement to recover the claimed amount within the period of limitation.

What did the court decide?

Issued recovery certificate for Rs. 65,44,476/- with future and pendentelite interest @9% simple from the date of filing.

Union Bank of India versus . Dr. v.C.Vandana — 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.83 OF 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.228/2018–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Union Bank of India, Koyambedu Branch, No.32, Kalliammam Koil Street, Koymebedu-600107 Rep.by its Senior Manager.

¶7

… APPLICANT.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Dr. V.C.Vandana, W/o. A.S.Venkatakrishnan,

¶10

No.38, Ramakrishna Nagar,

¶11

Virugambakkam,

¶12

Chennai-600092.

¶13

Mr. A.S.Venkatakrishnan, S/o.Srinivasavardhan,

¶14

17, Av.3^Rd Floor, Gandhi Road, Alwarthirunagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092. … DEFENDANTS.

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Sethuraman. Counsel for 1^st Defendant : M/s.S.K.Mariappan. 2^nd Defendant : Absent. …… ORDER

¶16

The applicant bank is approaching this Tribunal seeking issuance of a

¶17

recovery certificate for Rs. 65,44,476/- with further interest from the

¶18

date of filing of the OA and by allowing the same to be recovered

¶19

¶20

from the defendants jointly and severally and also by the sale of the schedule mentioned properties.

¶21

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

¶22

The applicant contends that the defendants having availed a term loan for Rs.100 Lakhs from erstwhile Corporation Bank which got amalgamated with Union Bank of India, agreeing to repay the same with interest @11.85% in 74 monthly installments of Rs.1,91,190/-.

¶23

The above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶24

The 2^nd defendant who had originally deposited the title documents of the schedule property with an intention to create mortgage for the existing credit facility for Rs.27 lakhs has extended the said mortgage for this facility also. Hypothecation over the movables was also created by execution of necessary documents.

¶25

The defendants though obliged to pay back the amount in accordance with the agreed terms had failed in doing so resulting huge arrears in the account and account being classified as NPA on 18.11.2015. Since no payment was done despite various demands, the OA is filed

¶26

¶27

A written statement was filed by the 1^st defendant admitting the availment of the facility, but disputing the execution of acknowledgment and availment of 27 lakhs. It is also stated that the machineries were already surrendered and further stated that the secured assets has already been sold by the applicant by way of E- auction hled on 29.10.2018 and the sale proceeds has not been appropriated towards the loan account. The 1^st defendant also disputes the statement of accounts. Even though D2 was served, there was no representation.

¶28

On behalf of the applicant AW1 was examined and Exhs.A1 to A14 were marked in evidence. Even though the 1^st defendant had filed a counter proof affidavit no documents were marked from their side.

¶29

Heard the counsel for both sides and considered the contention as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The defense set out by the 1^st defendant is also taken into consideration. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter.

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

¶34

The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed barring Exh.A10 which stands disputed by the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant submits that the said acknowledgment of debt is not executed by her as the signature therein differs. According to 1^st defendant, the document produced claiming to be the acknowledgment of debt, if rejected will lead to the situation were the claim of the applicant is barred by limitation. Hence this Tribunal had gone into the said contention in the light of the defense set out in the reply statement. In the reply statement the 1^st defendant is admitting that the applicant had initiated SARFAESI measures and auctioned the machineries by way of e-auction. Apart from that there is no serious dispute as to the creation of mortgage which will in turn leads to the finding that the claim of the applicant is not barred by limitation. The applicant had produced the demand promissory note executed by the 1^st defendant for Rs.1 crore which can lead to the finding that there exists a liability of the 1^st defendant in favour of the applicant.

¶35

Hence on consideration of the above contentions and available evidence, this Tribunal is satisfied as to the existence of the liability and entitlement of the applicant to recover the amount as claimed in the OA as all documents produced by the applicant were found

¶36

¶37

admissible. Hence this Tribunal is of the view that claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the contractual rate pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 9% simple.

¶38

In view of the finding as entered above

¶39

i) TA.No.83 OF 2023 stands allowed.

¶40

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 65,44,476/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Six only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Union Bank of India v. . Dr. v.C.Vandana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. . Dr. v.C.Vandana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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