Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Padmapriya

DRT21 Mar 2024TA/393/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate. The court held that the bank's evidence regarding the loan facility, default, and outstanding amount of Rs. 24,77,912/- was un-rebutted and sufficient. A Recovery Certificate was issued to enable recovery jointly and severally from the defendants and their assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate to recover Rs. 24,77,912/- along with future interest at 13.35% p.a. jointly, severally, and personally from the defendants and their assets.

Union Bank of India versus Padmapriya — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 21^st day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.393of 2022

¶4

(Old TA.No.3/2019-DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.395/2018-DRT-III, Chennai)

¶5

Union Bank of India Kumbakonam Branch, Nageswaran Sannadhi Street, Kumbakonam

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Padmapriya, Proprietor, M/s. Shri Sukar Rishi Farm Services No. 27, Dabir Middle Street, Kumbakonam

¶9

Mr. Natarajan, No. 27, Dabir Middle Street, Kumbakonam

¶10

Mr. Gopala Sastrigal No. 27, Dabir Middle Street, Kumbakonam

¶11

Mr. Ramamoorthy No. 27, Dabir Middle Street, Kumbakonam

¶12

...Defendants

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.N. Venkateswaran Defendants : Exparte

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.24,77,912/-due underthe CashCredit A/c along with future interest and costs.

¶17

The above Original Application is filed before the DRT-III, later transferred to DRT-I and then transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶18

The Applicant Bank contends thata Cash Credit facilityof Rs. 16,50,000/- was availed by the 1^st Defendant – Proprietor on behalf of her Proprietorship Concern. Thedefendants 2 to 4 stood as the Guarantors and the facility was secured by mortgage.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

¶22

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on 17.07.2019.

¶23

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A16.

¶24

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶25

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

¶26

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are decided together.

¶28

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. It is also stated that the secured properties are already sold.

¶29

In view of the above:

¶30

i. TA. No: 393of 2022 stands allowed.

¶31

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.24,77,912/-(Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Seventy SevenThousand NineHundred and TwelveOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 13.35%p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the

¶32

¶33

defendantsjointly, severallyand personally and also by proceeding against their assets.

¶34

iii. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the pendency of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendants.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶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, this 21^st day ofMarch, 2024)

¶40

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

¶41

Union Bank of India v. Padmapriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Padmapriya

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