Allowed

Canara Bank v. Balasubramaniyan

DRT21 Mar 2024TA/207/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for a recovery certificate of Rs. 58,74,930/- due on loan accounts. The court found evidence unrebutted, declined penal interest, awarded simple interest at 8% p.a., and authorized sale of mortgaged properties for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Issued recovery certificate for Rs. 58,74,930/- plus 8% simple interest; authorized sale of properties; cost of proceedings awarded.

Canara Bank versus Balasubramaniyan — 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

T.A.No.207of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.160/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Canara Bank Erstwhile Syndicate Bank Thanjavur – II Branch, No. 2783, 1^st Floor, Park Tower, South Rampart, Thanjavur District Thanjavur – 613 001 …Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. V. Balasubramaniyan, S/o. Shri. Velayutham No. 74/A, SethurayanKudikadu, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District – 614 902

¶9

Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, S/o. Shri. Kaliyaperumal, North Street, SethurayanKudikadu, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District – 614 902 ...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.M. Muthukumaran Counsel for Defendants : M/s. G. Rengasami

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.58,74,930/-due underthe 2 Farm Machinery Loan accounts forRs. 31,88,431/- and Rs. 26,86,449/along with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶14

The above Original Application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶15

The Applicant Bank contends thatFarm Machinery Loans of Rs, 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,91,000/-were availed by the 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd Defendant stood as Guarantor. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgageof scheduleA mentioned properties and hypothecation of Schedule B mentioned asset.

¶16

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

¶17

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amounts, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to

¶18

¶19

make the defendants pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶20

The 1^st defendant filed reply statement which was adopted by the 2^nd Defendant contending thatthe entire cultivation was done by Bank authorities and sold to Sugarcane Arignar Anna Sugar Mill and adjusted. The defendantsare also contending that the subsequent harvests were also sold by the Applicant’s officials. The defendants are also disputing the genuineness of the loan documents.

¶21

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A19.The defendants filed their counter proof affidavit reiterating contentions in the reply statement and produced bill issued by Sugar Mill.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶23

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

¶24

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The general denial in the reply statement about the execution of the loan documents without any proof as to the same, will not come in aid of the defendants. The documents produced by the

¶27

¶28

Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the 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. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, which is on the higher side and as the credit facilities as for agricultural purpose, prayer formonthly rests and penal interest is declined. Interest is awarded at 8% p.a. (simple).

¶29

In view of the above:

¶30

i. TA. No: 207of 2022 stands allowed.

¶31

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.58,74,930/-(Rupees Fifty EightLakhs Seventy FourThousand NineHundred and ThirtyOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 8%p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severallyand also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶32

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, both the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due.

¶33

¶34

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendants.

¶35

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.

¶36

vi. Applicant Bank 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.

¶37

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.

¶38

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 21^st day ofMarch, 2024)

¶39

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶40

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶41

Canara Bank v. Balasubramaniyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Balasubramaniyan

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