Allowed

Union Bank of India v. a S Selvam

DRT5 Feb 2024TA/101/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a Recovery Certificate under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act. The court found the time-barred claim proved as evidence was un-rebutted. A recovery certificate was issued for the dues along with future and pendentelite interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed TA No.101 of 2023. Permitted recovery of Rs.36,00,824.80 with future and pendentelite interest @12% p.a. Drawing and issuing a Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus a S Selvam — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | 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

T.A.No.101 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.114/2022-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Union Bank of India, (IFSC Code UBIN0930024), (erstwhile Corporation Bank), Sathuvacheri Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager, First Floor, Door No.12A/96, Arcot Road, Sathuvacheri – 632 009. Vellore District.

… Applicant.

Vs.

1. Mr.A.S.Selvam,

(PAN No.AAYP5920Q), S/o.Mr.Seethapathy, No.12, Kanar Thiruneelagandar Street, Arcot – 632 503. Vellore District.

¶10

M/s.Sriram Stores, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.A.S.Selvam, No.176/31, Sandy Bazaar, Arcot – 632 503. Vellore District.

¶11

Mr.S.Hariram, (Legal Heir of deceased S.Latha), S/o.Mr.A.S.Selvam, No.12, Kanar Thiruneelagandar Street, Arcot – 632 503. Vellore District. … Defendants.

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.A.Jaishankar. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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.36,00,824.80 due in the credit facility of Term loan and cash credit availed by the defendant.

¶16

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs.25,00,000/- as crop mortgage loan and Rs.14,00,000/- as cash credit facility loan were availed by 1^st defendant and late Latha. The 3^rd defendant is LR of late Latha. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties and hypothecation of crops.

¶17

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.

¶18

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear, they were set exparte on 05.09.2022.

¶19

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A11.

¶20

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶21

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶22

¶23

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are decided together.

¶25

The Applicant’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. It is also stated that by sale of schedule mentioned properties through SARFEASI Act an amount of Rs.12,09,217.80 is recovered and the same is recorded on 02.11.2023. Since the security is already sold pendentelite and future interest is awarded @12% p.a. (simple).

¶26

In view of the above

¶27

i) TA No.101 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶28

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.36,00,824.80 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eight Hundreds Twenty Four and Paise Eighty only) with future and pendentelite interest @12% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA . However the liability of 3^rd defendant is limited to the extent of estate, if any inherited from late Latha.

¶29

¶30

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms.

¶31

iv) 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd./-

¶37

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

¶38

Union Bank of India v. a S Selvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. a S Selvam

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

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

Canara Bank versus M/s..Kalyani Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Dhandayudhapani