Allowed

State Bank of India v. Chakkrapani P

DRT7 Mar 2024TA/123/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal upheld the applicant's claim for a recovery certificate regarding agricultural and KCC loans. The court found the evidence un-rebutted and issued an order for recovery of the principal amount along with future and pendentelite interest at 9% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 14,21,366.94 plus future and pendentelite interest at 9% p.a. via an issued Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Chakkrapani P — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 7^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.123 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.332/2019 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India, Cuddalore O.T. Branch, No.4, Imperial Road, Cuddalore – 607 003. Represented by its Chief Manager.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

P.Chakkrapani, S/o.T.Pandurangan, Yadhava Street, Kodandaramapuram, Periyakattusagai Village, Vazhuthalampattu (Post), Cuddalore District. … Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : Mr.P.Suhadev. Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.14,21,366.94 due in the Agricultural Term Loan and KCC loans availed by the defendant.

¶12

The Applicant contends that the defendant availed Agricultural Term

¶13

Loan of Rs.3,40,000/-, KCC-I of Rs.2,98,000/- KCC-II of Rs.2,45,000/-

¶14

¶15

and KCC-III of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also stated that the said facilities were secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties and also by hypothecation of movables.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

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

¶18

Summons was taken out and served. As the defendant failed to appear he was set exparte on 06.03.2020.

¶19

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A20.

¶20

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶21

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA 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

¶25

¶26

and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant is found

¶27

to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is for rural credit purpose and TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @9% p.a. (simple).

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) TA No.123/2023 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.14,21,366.94 (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Twenty One Thousands Three Hundred Sixty Six and Paise Ninety Four only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant personally and also from his assets including the sale of schedule mentioned property and by hypothecated movables, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

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

¶35

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶36

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 7^th day of March, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

State Bank of India v. Chakkrapani P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Chakkrapani P

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

Karur Vysya Bank versus Mrs. Kavitha S

Canara Bank versus Nila Paper Mill rep by Managing Partner

M/s.Indian Bank versus Ms.G.Pavithra

Bank of Baroda versus M/s.Mkr Stores

Bank of Baroda versus Mr R Thulasingam

State Bank of India versus N.Ezhumalai