Allowed

Indian Bank v. S Muthukumaran and Two Othres

DRT5 Feb 2024TA/214/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application for issuance of a recovery certificate arising from a secured open cash credit. The Tribunal held the time-barred claim proved and un-rebutted, ordering recovery of the principal and interest with permission to auction mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate for Rs. 31,22,635/- plus future and pendentlite interest; permission to sell schedule property and proceed against other assets; order for cost of proceedings.

Indian Bank versus S Muthukumaran and Two Othres — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 5^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.214 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.96/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch, No.1, Natesan Nagar, Kaliamman Koil Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092. Rep. by its Senior Manager.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Muthukumaran,

¶10

Prop. of M/s.Focus Communications. No.2/39, Maraimalai Adigal Street, Razack Garden, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.

¶11

S.Susila.

¶12

S/o.Sonaimuthu, 2/137, Varasakthi Vinayagar Koil Street, Odamangar, Vanagaram, Chennai – 600 095.

¶13

S.Karthikeyan, S/o.K.Shanmugam, Flat No.D2, A Block, Golden Prosperous Sunrise Apartments, Plot No.1, Justice Rathnavel Pandian Road, Golden George Nagar, Nerkundram, Chennai – 600 107.

¶14

… Defendants.

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.T.Sundar Rajan. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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. 31,22,685/- due in the credit facility of open cash credit availed by the defendants.

¶19

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs.20,00,000/-was availed by 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned property by the 3^rd defendant.

¶20

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility 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.

¶21

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear, they were set exparte on 27.06.2019.

¶22

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

¶23

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶24

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶25

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶26

¶27

Both these issues are decided together.

¶28

7. The Applicant’s evidence remains 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.

¶29

In view of the above

¶30

i) TA No.214of 2023 stands alloweds

¶31

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.31,22,635/(Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Twenty Two Thousands Six Hundreds and Thirty Five only) with future and pendentelite interest @16.95% with monthly rests 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 .

¶32

iii) The schedule property to be prceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

v) 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.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶37

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶38

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 5^th day of February, 2024)

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(T. RAJESH)

¶41

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶42

Indian Bank v. S Muthukumaran and Two Othres

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. S Muthukumaran and Two Othres

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 Govindarasu

Hdfc Bank versus Mani Sundar

City Union Bank Limited versus Joseph

M/s.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus Mr.Padmanaban

Union Bank of India versus a S Selvam

Canara Bank versus M/s..Kalyani Traders