Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr.Natchinarkiniyan.G

DRT9 Feb 2024TA/283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's Transfer Application to issue a Recovery Certificate of Rs.34.09 Lakh with 8% simple interest from filing date, permitting sale of mortgaged properties for recovery against defendants in ex parte proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.34,09,786 with 8% simple interest; permission to sell mortgaged properties; cost of proceedings allowed.

Canara Bank versus Mr.Natchinarkiniyan.G — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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.283 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.197/2022-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

CANARA BANK, Thanjavur Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager, 1783 and 1784, South Main Street, Thanjavur – 613 009. IFSC : CNRB0001221. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr.Natchinarkiniyan.G., S/o. Mr.Govindasamy, 1/65, Pottalangudikadu, Kakkarai, Orathanadu – 614 625.

¶8

Mr.Balasubramanian.R., S/o.Mr.Ramaswamy. Pottalangudikadu, Kakkarai, Orathanadu – 614 625. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.V.Subramanian Associatez. Defendants : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶9

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.34,09,786/- with further interest from

¶10

¶11

the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered

¶12

from defendants jointly and severally and also by proceedings against and selling the mortgaged properties and hypotheca.

¶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 1^st defendant being the borrower and 2^nd defendant being the guarantor had applied for and availed the following facilities from the

¶16

applicant.

¶17

Sl.No.	Credit Facility	Amount
1.	For purchase of Tractor and accessories	Rs.4,90,000/-
2.	For construction of borewell and pump set.	Rs.1,76,000/-

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amounts promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting in

¶21

¶22

defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA with effect from 30.04.2017.

¶23

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the accounts and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the accounts regularized over to pay back the amounts. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the applicant had caused to issue a legal notice dated 01.09.2021 requiring repayment of the amounts due in the account.

¶24

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 amounts due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶25

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 06.10.2022

¶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 A36 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 the documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶28

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. The evidences tendered by the applicant remain 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 accounts, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned properties). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit facilities are availed for agriculture related activities, pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 8% p.a. (simple). The prayer for penal interest is also declined.

¶34

In view of the findings as entered above.

¶35

i) TA No.283 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶36

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 34,09,786/(Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Nine Thousands Seven Hundred

¶37

¶38

and Eighty Six Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest

¶39

@8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and their assets including the

¶40

hypotheca after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

iv) 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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Canara Bank v. Mr.Natchinarkiniyan.G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr.Natchinarkiniyan.G

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

All orders in this case

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

Indian Overseas Bank, versus Mrs. Sudha