Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. S. Pannerselvam

DRT27 Mar 2024TA/178/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal upheld the applicant's application for a Recovery Certificate regarding an outstanding credit facility availed under PMEGP. The applicant's evidence remained un-rebutted. The court awarded recovery of the principal amount with simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 14,75,947.27 with future and pendente-lite interest @ 8% simple p.a. from the date of filing; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Mr. S. Pannerselvam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.178 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I, Chennai as OA No.11 of 2021 and thereafter Transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.178 of 2023)

¶7

Canara Bank Rep. by its Manager Having office at Madapalli Branch Madavalam post, Vellore – 635 653 ….Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. S. Pannerselvam S/o. Mr. Sabapathi Selandampalli Village, Selandam Post Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore – 635 653 …Defendant T

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. B. Narasimhan Counsel for Defendant : Ex-parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

The Application is filed under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 14,75,947.27 (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven and Twenty Seven paisa only) due in Credit Facility of Prime Minister’s Employment generation program (PMEGP) availed by the defendant.

¶13

The above TA was originally filed before DRT-I and got transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶14

¶15

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs. 5,00,000/- was availed by the defendant through the sponsoring agency “Khadi Village Industries” for carrying on the business of manufacturing of cattle feed.

¶16

The Applicant further contents 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 defendants pay back the amount including the issuance of lawyer notices dated 14.3.20216 and 25.8.2016 failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶17

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to appear he was set exparte on 27.10.2023.

¶18

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Ext A1 to A11.

¶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 evidence remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove TA claim. Hence the Applicant is to be found 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 related

¶24

¶25

activity, the pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8% per annum (simple).

¶26

In view of the above, the following order is passed: -

¶27

(a) TA No.178 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶28

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 14,75,947.27p (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven and Twenty Seven paisa only) with future and pendentalate interest @ 8% simple P.A from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA/TA, from the defendant personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶29

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

¶30

(d) 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.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶32

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 27^th day of March, 2024)

¶33

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

¶34

Canara Bank v. Mr. S. Pannerselvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. S. Pannerselvam

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 G. Edison

Bank of Baroda versus Jayakandan

State Bank of India versus Mr. S. Natarajan

State Bank of India versus Paramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri Vivekananda Builders

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Raam Oil Mills