Allowed

State Bank of India, v. Mr.v.Sundararajan

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/886/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a transfer application seeking recovery of an outstanding agricultural loan. The court found the claim well-documented and within limitation, ordering recovery of the principal, interest at 9% p.a., and permission to sell mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.11,66,846.12 with interest @9% p.a.; sale of mortgaged property if proceeds insufficient; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India, versus Mr.v.Sundararajan — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.886 OF 2023

¶4

(Old TA.No.6/2019–DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.556/2017–DRT-III, Chennai)

¶5

State Bank of India, Cuddalore O.T. Branch, No.4, Imperial Road, Cuddalore O.T., Cuddalore – 607 003. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr.V.Sundararajan, S/o.Mr.Veerappa Padayachi,

¶9

North Street, Vayalamur, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶10

Mr.V.Rayar, S/o.Mr.Veerappa Padayachi, North Street, Vayalamur, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶11

Mrs.S.Minnalkodi, W/o.Mr.V.Sundararajan, North Street, Vayalamur, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

… Defendants.

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.P.Suhadev. Defendants : Exparte.

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The above Transfer Application is filed Under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.11,66,846.12 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of the schedule mentioned mortgaged property.

¶17

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

¶18

The case of the Applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶19

The 1^st defendant being the borrower and defendants 2 & 3 being the guarantors had applied for and availed an Agriculture Term Loan for Rs.4,46,000/- from the applicant for the purchase of tractor.

¶20

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

¶21

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule properties on 28.05.2005. Apart from execution of the loan documents,

¶22

¶23

hypothecation over the tractor and stocks were marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶24

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 15.12.2015.

¶25

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 over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the applicant had on 28.02.2017 caused to issue a lawyer notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶26

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 TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶27

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance they were set exparte on 02.02.2018.

¶28

¶29

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 Exhs.A1 to A14 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶30

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:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA 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. 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 stated in the TA 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. Since the facility is for agricultural purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @9%(simple).

¶35

¶36

In view of the finding as entered above.

¶37

i) TA No.886 of 2023 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.11,66,846.12/(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousands Eight Hundred Forty Six and Twelve Paisa only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (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

State Bank of India, v. Mr.v.Sundararajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India, v. Mr.v.Sundararajan

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