Allowed

Canara Bank v. Rajaraman

DRT8 Mar 2024TA/371/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT Tribunal allowed the debt recovery application filed by Canara Bank against a defendant borrower. The court held the bank's evidence un-rebutted, confirming the loan account details and admissibility of documents. A Recovery Certificate was directed to be issued to the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer to recover Rs.32,93,738 plus interest.

Canara Bank versus Rajaraman — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 8^th day ofMarch, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.371of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.206/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Canara Bank Panruti Branch, No. 3, Rajaji Road, Panruti, Cuddalore District – 607 106 …Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr. V. Rajaraman S/o. Mr. Vaithyanathan, No. 50, South Street, Meliruppu Village, Keezhiruppu Post, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore – 607 103 ...Defendant

¶8

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J. Ramanathan Defendant : Exparte ……

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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.32,93,738/-due underthe Agricultural Loan A/c along with future interest and costs.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

The Applicant Bank contends thatan Agricultural Loan credit facility of Rs. 37,10,000/-was availed by the Defendant.

¶14

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

¶15

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by 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 though the defendant entered appearance, failed to file reply statement and hence, subsequentlyhe was set exparte on 05.02.2024.

¶17

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A7.

¶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

The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved.The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to

¶23

¶24

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 formonthly restsis declined.

¶25

In view of the above:

¶26

i. TA. No: 371of 2023 stands allowed.

¶27

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.32,93,738/-(Rupees Thirty TwoLakhs Ninety ThreeThousand SevenHundred and ThirtyEight Only/)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 8.95%p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendantpersonally and his assets.

¶28

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 defendants.

¶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

¶31

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 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

¶34

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶35

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 8^th day ofMarch, 2024)

¶36

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

¶37

Canara Bank v. Rajaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Rajaraman

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 Chakkrapani P

Bank of Baroda versus M/s.Mkr Stores

Bank of Baroda versus Mr R Thulasingam

M/s. Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. C. Rajasekaran

M/s. Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mohn Singh

Laxmi Vilas Bank versus M/s.Super Agencies