Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. M. Madhavan

DRT25 Mar 2024TA/447/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate filed by Indian Overseas Bank against three defendants an agricultural loan totaling Rs. 11,67,175 with future interest. The court observed evidence was un-rebutted, allowed the claim, and permitted sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 11,67,175; future interest at 9% p.a.; permission to sell schedule properties; defendants jointly and severally liable.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. M. Madhavan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 25^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.447of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.84/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank Keeramangalam Branch, No. 4, Gandhiji Road, Keeramangalam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District, Pin – 614 624 …Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mr. M. Madhavan S/o. Muthuramalingam, Kulamangalam North Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District

¶9

Mr. M. Vijayasundaram S/o. Muthuramalingam, Kulamangalam North Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District

¶10

Mr. M. Kumaravel S/o. Muthuramalingam, Kulamangalam North Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District ...Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Ananda Gomathy Defendants : Exparte ……

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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.11,67,175/-due underthe Agricultural Term Loan A/c along with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶14

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

¶15

The Applicant Bank contends an Agricultural Term Loan credit facility of Rs. 3,00,000/- was availed by the Defendants 1 to 3.It is also stated that the facilities are secured by hypothecation of schedule A mentioned assets and by mortgageof schedule Bmentioned properties.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on 06.12.2021.

¶21

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A9.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶23

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

¶24

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

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 and as the credit facility is for agricultural purpose,prayer formonthly restsand penal interest is declined.Interest is awarded at 9% p.a. (simple).

¶27

In view of the above:

¶28

i. TA. No: 447of 2022 stands allowed.

¶29

¶30

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.11,67,175/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seventy FiveOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 9% p.a. (simple) 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.

¶31

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, thedefendants are personally liable for all such amounts due.

¶32

iv. 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 25^th day ofMarch, 2024)

¶39

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

¶40

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. M. Madhavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. M. Madhavan

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

Hdfc Bank versus Kathiresan Kailasappan

Canara Bank versus Mr J Arul

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Simma Associates

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh