Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Shahul Hameed

DRT1 Mar 2024TA/213/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing an application under Section 19(1) RDB Act, 1993, the court issued a recovery certificate for Rs. 60,03,477 plus future interest at 12.45% for an educational loan, declining a prayer for penal interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 60,03,477 with future interest @12.45% p.a.; penal interest declined.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shahul Hameed — Insurance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 1^st day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No.213 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.415/2020 -DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Indian Overseas Bank, B Mutlur Branch, (IFSC : IOBA0001353) Represented by its Assistant Manager, No.184, Cuddalore, Chidamabaram Main Road, B Mutlur, Cuddalore District – 608 501. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr.J.Shahul Hameed, S/o.Mr.K.S.Jailaane, No.15, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Mumsapatti, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 003.

¶8

Mr.K.S.Jailaane, (PAN : ANVPJ7482P), S/o.Mr.K.Sikkandar, No.15, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Mumsapatti, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 003.

¶9

Mrs.J.Fathima, W/o.Mr.K.S.Jailaane, No.15, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Mumsapatti, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 003. …Defendants.

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Ananda Gomathy. Defendants : Exparte.

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The 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.60,03,477/- due in the Educational Term Loan availed by the defendants.

¶14

The Applicant contends that Educational Term loan of Rs.20,00,000/was availed by 1^st and 2^nd defendants for which 3^rd defendant stood as a guarantor. It is also stated that the said facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶15

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶16

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 01.06.2022.

¶17

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A15.

¶18

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶19

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶20

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶21

¶22

Both these issues are decided together.

¶23

The Applicant’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and 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. However, the prayer for penal interest is declined.

¶24

In view of the above:

¶25

i) TA No.213 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶26

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.60,03,477/(Rupees Sixty Lakhs Three Thousands Four Hundred and Seventy Seven Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest @12.45% with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants personally and also from their assets including the sale of schedule mentioned properties after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

iv) 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.

¶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

¶31

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶32

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 1^st day of March, 2024)

¶33

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

¶34

Indian Overseas Bank v. Shahul Hameed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Shahul Hameed

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

South Indian Bank versus P Balamurugan

Laxmi Vilas Bank versus Chinnasamy

Am Premila a versus Premila

Indian Bank versus M/s.a.v.Constructions

State Bank Of India versus K. Thanikachalam

Union Bank of India versus Ars Natural Products