Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. v Rajadurai

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/863/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues from the legal heirs of a deceased borrower. It certified the loan disbursement and adjusted interest rates to simple interest at 11% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to realize aggregate amount of Rs.96,34,982 plus simple interest at 11% from date of filing till realization.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. v. Rajadurai — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.863 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.22 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.863 of 2023)

¶7

Indian Overseas Bank Keeramangalam Branch Rep. by its Chief Manager No.4, Gandhiji Road, Keeramangalam Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District Pincode: 614624

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. V. Rajadurai

¶11

S/o Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam Pullachi Street, Vadakadu Post Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District

¶12

Mr. V. Rajapandian S/o Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam Pullachi Street, Vadakadu Post Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District

¶13

Mr. V. Rajarajan S/o Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam Pullachi Street, Vadakadu Post Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District

¶14

Mrs. V. Tamilarasi D/o Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam P.B. No.523, Anbalagan Salai K.K. Nagar, Trichy – 621 021

¶15

Mrs. M. Dhanalakshmi D/o Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam Manaparai Main Road, Karaipatti Near Thuvarankurichi Trichy – 621 314

¶16

¶17

Mr. K.R. Boopathi No.523, Anbalaghan Salai K.K. Nagar, Trichy – 620 021 …Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s Ananda Gomathy Defendants : Ex- parte

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,55,21,547/- together with interest at the rate of 13.85% 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..

¶21

The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶22

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

¶23

The defendants 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam and the said Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan for construction of Shopping Complex and considering the said request the applicant sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.20,00,000/- vide sanction dated 02.11.2007 repayable in 84 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.37,024/- with effect from 05.09.2008. It is stated that Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam executed necessary loan documents on 5.11.2007. It is also stated that the Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned property on 12.10.2007 with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and

¶24

¶25

confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 22.10.2007 registered as Doc. No.2389 of 2007, SRO, Alangudi. The said Mr. A. Venkatacham died on 7.10.2010 leaving behind the defendants 1 to 5 are his legal heirs.

¶26

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 02.01.2019.

¶27

It is contended by the applicant that the applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount. It is stated that as no repayment was forthcoming despite repeated request the applicant invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 04.02.2013 requiring the repayment of the amount due in the account followed by Possession Notice dated 21.05.2013. It is stated that the Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam executed Revival Letter on 09.07.2010.

¶28

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.

¶29

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendants remained absent and hence were called absent and set ex-parte on 29.08.2019.

¶30

¶31

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-11 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶32

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.

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶34

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

¶35

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants 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 defendants and their assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶38

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a Term loan for construction of shopping complex and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

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: -

¶42

(a) TA No.863 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶43

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.96,34,982/with future and pendentelite interest @11% p.a., simple from the defendants jointly and severally, 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 schedule mentioned property and other assets of the defendants. However, the liabilities of defendants 1 to 5 are restricted to the extent of estate inherited by them from the Late Mr. A. Venkatachalam.

¶44

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants 2 to 6 are personally liable for all such amounts due under the Loan Accounts; however the same is restricted to the extent of interest they had inherited from Late A. Venkatachalam.

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶49

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 29^th day of December, 2023)

¶50

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

¶51

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. v Rajadurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. v Rajadurai

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 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

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari