Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr. K. Rajkumar

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/319/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of a recovery certificate. The court held the bank's evidence un-rebutted and sufficient to prove the claim, permitting recovery of the principal sum along with future interest and directing sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 26,14,635/- with future interest; defendants directed to repay; properties directed to be sold.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. K. Rajkumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.319of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No. 204/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Union Bank of India Erstwhile Andhra Bank Thirupparkadal Branch No. 6/2A, Thirupparkadal Road, Thirupparkadal, Ranipet District – 632 508

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. K. Rajkumar, S/o. Mr. M. G. Kuppan, Door No. 184,Mettu Street, Vanghur Village & Post, Walajah Taluk,Ranipet District – 632501

¶9

Mr. K. Padmanaban, S/o. Mr. M. G. Kuppan, Door No. 184, Mettu Street, Vanghur Village & Post, Walajah Taluk, Ranipet District – 632 501

¶10

...Defendants

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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.26,14,635/-due under the two credit facilities i.e. Rs. 21,86,287/- under the Housing Loan – I A/c and Rs. 4,28,348/- under the Housing Loan - II A/c along with future interest and costs and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶15

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

¶16

The Applicant Bank contends thata Housing Loan -I credit facility of Rs. 20,00,000/- and a Housing Loan – II credit facility of Rs. 4,00,000/- were availed by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants from erstwhileAndhra Bank which later got amalgamated with the Applicant Bank.It is also stated that the credit facilitiesare secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

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.

¶18

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. It is also stated that all the efforts of the

¶19

¶20

Applicant Bank to make the defendants pay back the balance due amounts failed and the Applicant Bank is forced to file this Application.

¶21

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on19.07.2022.

¶22

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs. A1 to A19.

¶23

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶24

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

¶25

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are decided together.

¶27

The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the 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 has been arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, prayer for monthly rests and penal interest is declined.

¶28

In view of the above:

¶29

i. TA. No: 319of 2023 stands allowed.

¶30

¶31

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.26,14,635/- (Rupees Twenty SixLakhs FourteenThousand SixHundred and Thirty FiveOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 7.80% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 21,86,287/and @7.85% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 4,28,348/-from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severally and 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, the defendants are personallyliable for all such amounts due.

¶33

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 accounts of the defendant.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this26^th day of March, 2024)

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

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

¶42

Union Bank of India v. Mr. K. Rajkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr. K. Rajkumar

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

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh

State Bank of India versus Cm Atheequr Rahman Co.

State Bank of India versus P. Kaviyarasan

Indian Bank versus M/s. Balaji Enterprises