Allowed

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

DRT2 Feb 2024TA/113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application for a Recovery Certificate under the RDB Act, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's claim. The court found the TA proved on evidence and granted recovery of Rs.50,27,739 with interest, permitting sale of mortgaged property for realization.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.50,27,739 with future interest permitting sale of mortgaged property.

M/s.City Union Bank Ltd., versus The Srinivasa… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 2^nd day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.113 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.210/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

M/s.City Union Bank Ltd., Panruti Branch, No.9, RC Complex, Kumbakonam Main Road, Panruti – 607 106. Cuddalore District.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Srinivasa Traders, A Proprietorship concern Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.R.Shankar, Having business place at No.37/1/3, Diversion Road, Panruti – 607 106.

¶9

Mr.R.Shankar, S/o.Mr.Radhakrishnan.

¶10

Mrs.S.Mageshwari, W/o.Mr.R.Shankar.

¶11

Both (2) & (3) residing at No.37/1/3, Diversion Road, Panruti – 607 106.

¶12

… Defendants.

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Anuradaha Balaji. Defendants : Exparte.

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.50,27,739/- due in the credit facility of CCOD facility and OSL Special EMI loan availed by the defendants.

¶17

The Applicant contends that the aggregate credit facilities of Rs.42,50,000/- was availed by the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor and the 3^rd defendant is the co-obligant. 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 20.06.2023

¶20

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A23.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶22

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶23

¶24

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

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. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, prayer for penal interest is declined.

¶27

In view of the above

¶28

i) TA No.113 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.50,27,739/(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousands Seven Hundreds and Thirty Nine only) with future and pendentelite interest @15% on Rs.47,30,433.27 and @ 17% on Rs.2,97,305.69 both on monthly rests 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

¶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 proceeding 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

¶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./-

¶39

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

¶40

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Canara Bank versus Ragini

Canara Bank versus D Jayakumar