Allowed

Canara Bank v. R. Sumathi

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/325/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19(1) RDB Act. Finding evidence un-rebutted and the claim within limitation, the bank is permitted to recover the principal amount along with future interest at 8% p.a. A recovery certificate is directed to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 38,35,549/- with future interest at 8% p.a. (simple); allowed to recover from defendant and her assets.

Canara Bank versus R. Sumathi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.325of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.311/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Canara Bank Karaikadi Branch Virudhachalam Road, Kannarapettai, Cuddalore District. …Applicant Vs. R. Sumathi W/o. Ramachandran, #506, Pillaiyarkoil Street, Keeliruppu, Nadrukattupalayam, Killirippu, Cuddalore – 607 103 ...Defendant Counsel for Applicant : M/s.M. Karthik Defendant : Exparte ……

¶7

ORDER

¶8

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.38,35,549/-due under the 2 Produce

¶9

Term LoanAccountsalong with future interest and costs.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

The Applicant Bank contends that2 Produce – Term Loan credit facilities amounting to Rs.20,20,000/- and Rs. 8,26,000/- were availed by the Defendantby hypothecation of cashew stocks.

¶13

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution

¶14

of necessary loan documents by the defendant, obliging herselfto repay the amounts promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶15

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facilities obliging to pay back the amounts, the defendant failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendant pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶16

Summons was taken out and even though defendant entered appearance, failed to file reply statement hence, subsequently she was set exparte on 13.03.2024.

¶17

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A14.

¶18

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶19

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

¶20

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶21

Both these issues are decided together.

¶22

¶23

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,prayer for yearly restsis declined.Interest is awarded @ 8% p.a. (simple).

¶24

In view of the above:

¶25

i. TA. No: 325of 2023 stands allowed.

¶26

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.38,35,549/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand FiveHundred and Forty NineOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendantpersonally and also by proceeding against her assets.

¶27

iii. 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 defendant.

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

v. 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

¶31

receipt of the copy of the order.

¶32

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 26^th day ofMarch, 2024)

¶35

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

¶36

Canara Bank v. R. Sumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. R. Sumathi

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