Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M Sivaraja Selvan

DRT21 Mar 2024TA/158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the examiner's application for a termination agreement under RDB Act. Unrebutted evidence proved the defendant's liability. The court awarded principal dues with 9% pendent lite and future interest, permitting recovery from assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 17.84 lakhs plus 9% p.a. simple future and pendent lite interest; authorizing recovery from defendant's assets.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M Sivaraja Selvan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 21^st day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.158 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.412/2018 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Aranthangi Branch, Represented by its Senior Manager, No.71B, First Floor, Old Hospital Road, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District – 614 616. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr.M.Sivaraja Selvan, S/o.Mr.K.Munusamy, No:33/23, North Street, Aranthangi Town and Taluk, Pudukottai District – 614 616. … Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Ananda Gomathy. Defendant : Exparte. ……

¶9

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.17,84,735/- due in Housing Term Loan availed by

¶12

the defendant.

¶13

¶14

The Applicant contends that the defendant availed Housing Term Loan of Rs.22,00,000/-. It is stated that the said facility was secured by schedule mentioned property.

¶15

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

¶16

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging 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.

¶17

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to enter appearance he was set exparte on 07.03.2024.

¶18

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A9.

¶19

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶20

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶21

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶22

Both these issues are decided together.

¶23

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and

¶24

¶25

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 claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side and the loan availed is for housing purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @9% p.a. (simple).

¶26

In view of the above

¶27

i) TA No.158/2023 stands allowed.

¶28

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.17,84,735/(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eighty Four Thousands Seven Hundred and Thirty Five 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, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶29

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.

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶34

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 21^st day of March, 2024)

¶35

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

¶36

Indian Overseas Bank v. M Sivaraja Selvan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M Sivaraja Selvan

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

State Bank of India versus Agrubber Industtry

Bank of India versus Durga Granites

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T.

Syndicate Bank versus Sanswe Dairy and Two Others

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Balaji Enterprises

Canara Bank versus R Dhandapani and Two Others