Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Mr. Senapathi Sivashanmuga Devar

DRT8 Feb 2024TA/186/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer application allowed. Debtor to repay principal and interest. Recovery certificate to be issued. Property to be proceeded against for recovery of dues.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate to be drawn and issued. Property to be sold. Cost of proceeding to be realised.

What the court decided

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus Mr. Senapathi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 8^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.186 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.10/2022-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited, No. 128, Nelson Manickam Road, East West Centre, Ground Floor, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 IFSC : HDFC0000441 PAN No: AAACH2702H

¶6

And Also Having Office At: No. 49/50, Nelson Towers, 2^nd Floor, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 …Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. Senapathi Sivashanmuga Devar, S/o. Sivashanmuga Devar PAN No: EPVPS6052E Old No. 6, New No. 8-1, Edaiyankottai Nagudi, Aranthangi, Pudukottai – 614 616

¶9

Mr. Muthuramalingam Azhagarsami Devar S/o. Azhagarsami Devar No. 10, Koothanur, Bramanavayal Post, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District – 614 360 …Defendants

¶10

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. T. K. M. Sai Krishnan Counsel for Defendants : M/s. R. K. Ramaiah

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The above Transfer 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.29,22,896.27/-due in the credit facilities of Cash Credit and Term loans availed by the defendant.

¶14

The Applicant Bank contends that a Cash credit facility of Rs. 11,07,000/- and a Term Loan facility of Rs. 4,43,000/-were availed by 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd Defendant stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the facilitiesare secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned propertiesthat belongs to the 1^st defendant.

¶15

The Applicant Bank further contends that after availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amounts and despitethe Applicant Bankallowing restructuring of the facilities as mandated by RBI following Natural calamities,the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendants pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶16

Heard.The following issues arise for consideration:

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶20

Both these issues are decided together.

¶21

Even though the defendants entered appearance and filed reply statement, no contra evidence is available from the side of the defendants. The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to provethe TA 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.

¶22

In view of the above:

¶23

i. TA No. 186 of 2022stands allowed.

¶24

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 29,22,896.27/- (Rupees TwentyNine Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Six and Paisa Twenty Seven Only/-)with interest @12% p.a. on Rs.20,14,528.59/-, @14% p.a. on Rs.4,22,231/-, @12% p.a. on Rs. 88,284.76/-, @14% p.a. on Rs.2,69,253.62/- and @14% p.a. on Rs.1,28,598/-from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

iv. 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

vi. Applicant Bank 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.

¶30

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 (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶31

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 8^th day of February, 2024)

¶32

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

¶33

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Mr. Senapathi Sivashanmuga Devar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Hdfc Bank Limited, v. Mr. Senapathi Sivashanmuga Devar

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Radhakrishnan

Indian Overseas Bank versus Suns Food Company

Indian Bank versus M/s.Thirumalai Stores

Bank of Baroda versus S.Anjalatchi

Union Bank of India versus Mr. N. Balu

State Bank of India versus Mrs. R. Renganayagi