Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Radhakrishnan

DRT7 Feb 2024TA/135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's application for a recovery certificate of Rs. 27,01,168.72 with interest at 8% p.a. The Court held the documents admissible, awarded interest for an agricultural loan, and ordered the sale of mortgaged properties to recover dues.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 27,01,168.72 with interest at 8% p.a.; order to sell mortgaged properties.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Radhakrishnan — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 7^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.135 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.166/2022-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank Panruti Branch No. 597/A, First Floor, Gandhi Road, Panruti, Cuddalore – 607 105 IFSC: IOBA0001835

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr. V.P. Radhakrishnan S/o. Mr. Pakkirisamy, No. 273/3, S.S Nagar, Melpattambakkam& Post, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶10

Mr. M. Ganapathy S/o. Mr. Mayavan No. 17/26, Lakshmipuram, Melpattambakkam& Post, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District …Defendants

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J. Ramanthan Defendants : Exparte

¶12

ORDER

¶13

¶14

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.27,01,168.72Pdue in the credit facilityof Agricultural Term Loan availed by the defendants and for sale of schedule mentioned properties along with costs.

¶15

The Applicant Bank contends that atotal credit facility of Rs. Rs.10,00,000/-was availed by the 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd Defendant stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentionedproperties.

¶16

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

¶17

The Applicant Bank 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 Bank to make the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application after NPA classification.

¶18

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to enter appearance, they were setexparte on 27.09.2022

¶19

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs. A1 to A16.

¶20

¶21

Heard.The following issues arise for consideration:

¶22

i. Whether the Applicant Bank had proved the TA claim?

¶23

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are decided together.

¶25

The Applicant Bank’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove theTA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank 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 facility is for agricultural purpose, interest is awarded @ 8% p.a. (simple).

¶26

In view of the above:

¶27

i. TA. No: 135 of 2022stands allowed.

¶28

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.27,01,168.72P (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs One Thousand One Hundred Sixty Eight and Seventy Two Paisa Only/-)with future and pendentelite interest @ 8%p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendantsand also by proceedings against hypothecated assets after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶29

¶30

iii. It is made clear that the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due in the Loan accounts.

¶31

iv. The schedule mentioned properties 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

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

¶33

vi. Applicant Bankis 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

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 7^th day of February, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

Indian Overseas Bank v. Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Radhakrishnan

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

M/s.Canara Bank, versus Mr.M.Ramesh

Bank of India versus J. Selvakannan

Canara Bank versus M/s. Arv Wash Tech

Karur Vysya Bank versus Mrs. Bhavani S.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Karthick

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Ms Vasanthamrice Mundy