Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank, v. Mrs. Sudha

DRT9 Feb 2024TA/265/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed by the bank for issuance of a recovery certificate against agricultural loan defaulters. The court validated the outstanding claim and ordered joint and several recovery, including specific sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.41,92,860.30 plus 7% interest; order to sell schedule properties and hypothecated assets.

Indian Overseas Bank, versus Mrs. Sudha — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 9^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.265 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.91/2022-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Indian Overseas Bank, Panruti Branch, No.597/A, First Floor, Gandhi Road, Panruti, Cuddalore – 607 105. Rep. by its Branch Manager. IFSC : IOBA0001835. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mrs. Sudha, W/o.Mr.Varadharajan, No.157/2, Mariamman Koil Street, Pathirakottai Village, Silambinathanpettai Hamlet, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore – 607 301.

¶8

Mr.P.Varadharajan, S/o.Mr.Pachai, No.157/2, Mariamman Koil Street, Pathirakottai Village, Silambinathanpettai Hamlet, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore – 607 301. … Defendants.

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.J.Ramanathan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The above Transfer Application is filed Under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.41,92,860.30 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendants jointly and severally and allow the same to be recovered by sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated articles.

¶13

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

¶14

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶15

The defendants had applied for and availed the following facilities

¶16

from the applicant.

¶17

Sl. no	Credit facility	Amount
1.	KCC Loan account	Rs.1,57,228/-
2.	Agri Crop Loan.	Rs.1,50,000/-
3.	Agri Term Loan.	Rs.2,00,000/-
4.	Agri Term Loan.	Rs.9,00,000/-
5.	Agri Crop Loan.	Rs.89,550/-
6.	Agri Crop Loan.	Rs.1,00,000/-

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 1^st Defendant had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties and hypothecation over the crops was marked as being the security for repayment of the loan. The KCC Loan was availed by D1 only while the other loans were borrowed by D1 for which D2 stood as guarantor.

¶21

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting in defaults in the accounts and the same being declared as NPA with effect from 27.06.2016.

¶22

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶24

¶25

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 21.07.2022.

¶26

The Applicant had let in evidence through AW-1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhs.A1 to A38 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶27

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidences and proof affidavit.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim?

¶30

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amounts as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there

¶33

¶34

is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facilities availed are

¶35

for agriculture purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @7% p.a. (simple).

¶36

In view of the findings as entered above:

¶37

i) TA No.265 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶38

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.41,92,860.30 (Rupees Forty One Lakhs Ninety Two Thousands Eight Hundred Sixty and Paisa Thirty Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest @ 7% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants out of which an amount of Rs.4,03,544.56 is to be recovered from 1^st defendant and her assets and balance amount of Rs.37,89,315.74 is to be recovered from both the defendants and their assets, including the hypotheca after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶39

iii) 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. However the liability of 2^nd defendant is limited to the extent of an amount of Rs.37,89,315.74.

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 9^th day of February, 2024)

¶46

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

¶47

Indian Overseas Bank, v. Mrs. Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank, v. Mrs. Sudha

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

Bank of Baroda versus Mr.B.Gunasekaran

State Bank of India versus Vijay

Canara Bank versus N.Kulandaivel

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) versus Mr. S. Annamalai (Borrower)

City Union Bank Ltd. versus Mr. K. Anand

Canara Bank versus Mr.Natchinarkiniyan.G