Allowed

Canara Bank v. Govindarasu

DRT2 Feb 2024OA/19/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application of Canara Bank against two defendants for an agricultural loan. Being agricultural, interest was fixed at 9% per annum. A recovery certificate was issued for Rs. 64.18 Lakhs principal plus pendenteliterate interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA No. 19/2023; permitted recovery of Rs. 64,17,996 with future and pendenteliterate interest at 9% p.a.; issued Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Govindarasu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 2^nd day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

OA.No.19 of 2023

¶6

Canara Bank, Thanjavur Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager, 1783 and 1784, South Main Street, Thanjavur – 613 009. IFSC : CNRB0001221.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr.S.Govindarasu, S/o.Saminathan, No.128/69, Keelaulur, Orathanadu, Thanjavur – 614 904.

¶10

P.Ramamurthy, S/o.Mr.Pampaiya @ Pampasami Thevar, No.1/124, Pillayar Koil Street, Keelaulur, Orathanadu, Thanjavur – 614 904. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.Jagadeesan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of

¶13

Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 64,17,996/- due in the credit facilities of

¶14

agricultural advances for purchase of tractor, pumpset and for land

¶15

¶16

development availed by the defendants from erstwhile Syndicate Bank.

¶17

2. The Applicant contends that a total facility of Rs.7,86,000/- was availed by defendants and 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶18

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 16.05.2023.

¶20

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A30.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶22

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim?

¶23

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are decided together.

¶25

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible

¶26

¶27

and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the lending is for agricultural purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 9% p.a. (simple). The prayer for penal interest is also refused.

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) TA No.19/2023 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs 64,17,996/(Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Seventeen Thousands Nine Hundred and Ninety Six only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

¶34

v) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding 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 Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT

¶36

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶37

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 2^nd day of February, 2024)

¶38

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

¶39

Canara Bank v. Govindarasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Govindarasu

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

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., versus Ms.S.Kotteswari

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/s. Prithvi Engineering Industries

Bank of Baroda, versus T.Sumathi

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Ayyanar Enterprises

M/s.City Union Bank Ltd., versus The Srinivasa Traders

Canara Bank versus Ragini