Allowed

M/s.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Mr.Padmanaban

DRT5 Feb 2024OA/304/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate. The court found the claim proved as un-rebutted, awarded the principal sum with 9% simple pendentelite interest, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate against the primary guarantor and the other respondents to the extent of their inherited estate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.65,30,590.20 with 9% p.a. simple future and pendentelite interest via issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

M/s.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus Mr.Padmanaban — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 5^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.304 of 2022

¶4

M/s.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Hosur Branch. S.No.690/1; Old Bengaluru Road, First Floor, M.M.Reddy Building, Hosur – 635 109. Krishnagiri District.

¶5

… Applicant. Vs.

¶6

Mr.Padmanaban, S/o.Kuttyappa, No.4/844, D.Kothapalli, Bodichipalli, Soolagiri, Krishnagiri – 635 113.

¶7

Mrs.Nelamma, W/o.Kuttyappa, No.4/844, D.Kothapalli, Bodichipalli, Soolagiri, Krishnagiri – 635 113.

¶8

Ms.Renukamma, D/o.Kuttyappa, No.4/844, D.Kothapalli, Bodichipalli, Soolagiri, Krishnagiri – 635 113.

¶9

Ms.Vanaja, D/o.Kuttyappa, No.4/844, D.Kothapalli, Bodichipalli, Soolagiri, Krishnagiri – 635 113.

¶10

Nirmala, D/o.Kuttyappa, No.4/844, D.Kothapalli, Bodichipalli, Soolagiri, Krishnagiri – 635 113.

¶11

¶12

Mrs.Muni Venkatamma, M/o.Kuttyappa, No.4/844, D.Kothapalli, Bodichipalli, Soolagiri, Krishnagiri – 635 113. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.Tamilavel. Defendants : Exparte.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.65,30,590.20 due in the credit facility of Term loan availed by the defendant .

¶15

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs.60,00,000/- was availed by late Kuttyappa and the 1^st defendant stood as guarantor for the same. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties belonged to the late borrower, AC Kuttyappa and defendants 2 to 6 are the other LRs of deceased borrower apart from 1^st defendant.

¶16

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.

¶17

¶18

Summons was taken out and as the defendants 1 to 6 failed to appear they were set exparte on 26.04.2023.

¶19

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A70.

¶20

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶21

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim?

¶22

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶23

Both these issues are decided together.

¶24

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible 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 facility is for agricultural purpose pendentelite and future interest is awarded @9 % p.a. (simple).

¶25

In view of the above

¶26

i) TA No.304 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶27

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.65,30,590.20

¶28

(Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Thirty Thousands Five Hundred Ninety and Paise Twenty only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till

¶29

¶30

realization from the 1^st defendants and his assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA. However defendants 2 to 6 are liable only to the extent of estate they had inherited from deceased Kuttyappa.

¶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 as above.

¶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

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 5^th day of February, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

M/s.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Mr.Padmanaban

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Mr.Padmanaban

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

Canara Bank versus Govindarasu

Hdfc Bank versus Mani Sundar

City Union Bank Limited versus Joseph

Union Bank of India versus a S Selvam

Canara Bank versus M/s..Kalyani Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Dhandayudhapani