Allowed

M/s. Canara Bank. v. Mr. M. Karthick

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/90/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an exparte transfer application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for recovery of an outstanding agricultural loan principal and interest, directing sale of mortgaged and hypothecated assets and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,59,680/- with 12% interest; sale of mortgaged/hypothecated assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

M/s. Canara Bank. versus Mr. M. Karthick — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.90 OF 2023

¶5

(Old OA No.60/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

M/s. Canara Bank. Ambur Branch, Rep.by its Manager, Mr.K.R.Karthikeyan, No.19&20, Chairman Rajagopal Street, Ambur-635802. … APPLICANT

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. M.Karthick, S/o. Mr.S.Mohan, No.70A, Ward 2, Arasamara Street, Venkatesamuthiram, Ambur – 635811.

¶9

Also at Mr. M.Karithick, S/o. Mr.S.Mohan, Door No.19, Reddy Street Alias Gandhi Road Melkrishnapuram, Ambur, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore-635802. … DEFENDANT Counsel for Applicant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy. Defendant : Exparte. ….. O R D E R

¶10

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the

¶11

Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of

¶12

Rs.25,59,680/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendant personally and also by sale of the mortgaged schedule property.

¶13

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

¶14

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:The defendant had applied for and availed farm machinery loan for Rs.5,50,000/- from the applicant, which was sanctioned on 28.03.2007.

¶15

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. By virtue of agreement, the repayment was agreed to be paid in 7 yearly installments and the rate of interest agreed was @12.50% with half yearly rest.

¶16

Apart from execution of necessary loan documents the defendant had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties. Apart from execution of necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the Tractor TN23AT4277 and Trailer TN23AT4278 were marked as being the security for repayment of

¶17

the loan. The defendant had also executed the acknowledgment of debt.

¶18

Even though the defendant had obliged himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, he failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 28.03.2008.

¶19

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting him to repay the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated request, the applicant had on 10.10.2018 caused to issue a lawyer notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant had failed to make the balance due forcing the applicant to file this OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶21

Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 24.04.2019.

¶22

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

¶23

Exhibits A1 to A11 and got the same marked. However Exh.A6 was marked subject to proof.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remains exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. The applicant had not produced the registration certificate of the vehicle to prove that hypothecation is marked. However as the defendant had not disputed the evidence the same is held as proved. 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 (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no

¶29

Capitalization of penal interest. Since facility is agricultural one pendentalite and future interest is awarded @ 12% simple.

¶30

In view of the finding as entered above

¶31

i) TA.No.90 OF 2023 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 25,59,680/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 12% per annum 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.

¶32

iii) The schedule property and hypothecated tractor and trailer are to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendant and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

M/s. Canara Bank. v. Mr. M. Karthick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Canara Bank. v. Mr. M. Karthick

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