Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. Ayyappan

DRT21 Mar 2024TA/32/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 19(1) RDB Act. The Bank proved its claim for Rs. 35,15,557/- secured by mortgage. The Court granted recovery order with specific interest rates and clarified co-borrower liability.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 35,15,557/- with future interest. Permission to sell mortgaged properties and proceed against persons.

City Union Bank Limited versus Ayyappan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 21^st day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.32of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.299/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

City Union Bank Limited Athanakkottai Branch Thanjavur – Pudukottai Main Road, Block : 3, Athanakottai – 622 203

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

P. Ayyappan S/o. Late A. Perumal No. 175, West Street Ganapathipuram Pudukottai – 622 203

¶10

Mrs. P. Mainavathy W/o. Late A. Perumal No. 175, West Street, Ganapathipuram, Pudukottai – 622 203

¶11

P. Kathiravan S/o. Late A. Perumal No. 175, West Street Ganapathipuram Pudukottai – 622 203

¶12

Ms. Monisha D/o. Late A. Perumal No. 175, West Street Ganapathipuram Pudukottai – 622 203

¶13

...Defendants

¶14

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R. Sriram Defendants : Exparte ……

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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 a total sum of Rs.35,15,557/-due underthe 3 credit facilities i.e.Rs. 25,32,363/- and Rs. 6,91,029/- under Swayam Griha Housing Loan Accounts and Rs. 2,92,165/- under Personal Loan A/calong with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶18

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

¶19

The Applicant Bank contends that‘Swayam Griha’ Housing Loan credit facilities of Rs. 25,00,000/-& Rs. 7,25,000/- and a Personal Loan Credit facility of Rs.3,00,000/- were availed by defendants 1 and 2 along with deceased co-borrower A. Perumal – whose legal heirs are defendants 3 and 4.It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgageof schedule mentioned properties.

¶20

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.

¶21

¶22

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 and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendants pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶23

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on 12.05.2022.

¶24

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A22.

¶25

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶26

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

¶27

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are decided together.

¶29

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 is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, which is on the higher side, prayer formonthly rests is declined.

¶30

¶31

In view of the above:

¶32

i. TA. No: 32of 2022 stands allowed.

¶33

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.35,15,557/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs FifteenThousand FiveHundred and Fifty SevenOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 9%p.a. (simple) on Rs. 25,32,363/- and Rs. 6,91,029/- and @12% p.a.(simple) on Rs. 2,92,165/-from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendantsjointly and severally and personally and also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶34

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendant D1 and D2are personally liable for all such amounts due. The liability of defendants D3 and D4 are limited to the extend of assets inherited from the deceased co-borrower – Late A. Perumal.

¶35

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 account of the defendants.

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

receipt of the copy of the order.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 21^st day ofMarch, 2024)

¶43

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

¶44

City Union Bank Limited v. Ayyappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Ayyappan

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

State Bank of India versus Agrubber Industtry

Bank of India versus Durga Granites

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T.

Syndicate Bank versus Sanswe Dairy and Two Others

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Balaji Enterprises

Canara Bank versus R Dhandapani and Two Others