Allowed

City Union Bank Ltd. v. Mr. K. Anand

DRT9 Feb 2024TA/486/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for a Recovery Certificate against borrowers and guarantors for repayment of housing and term loans. The claim was found proved and un-rebutted. A recovery certificate was directed to be issued with interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 23,86,814.40 plus future and pendent lite interest payable by the defendants and their assets.

City Union Bank Ltd. versus Mr. K. Anand — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 9^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.486 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.185/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

CITY UNION BANK LTD. Anna Nagar Branch, 46, Ground Floor, Ist Avenue, Near Chintamani,

¶6

Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr. K. Anand

¶10

S/o. Mr. S. Kannan, Plot No. 122, Door No. 17, Loganathan Street, Krishnapuram, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053

¶11

Mrs. A. Nirmala

¶12

W/o. Mr. K. Anand, Plot No. 122, Door No. 17, Loganathan Street, Krishnapuram, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053

¶13

M/s. Sri Harinibala Garments Represented by its Proprietor : Mr. K. Anand, 1^st Floor, Pakkam Thiruvallur Road, Pakkam – 602 024

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Sivaraman Defendants : Exparte.

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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.23,26,814.40/-i.e. Rs. 10,84,027.39/due under CUB Swayam Griha Loan A/c and Rs. 12,42,786.90/- due under OSL Term – Special Loan A/c with further interest as prayed for.

¶19

The Applicant Bank further contends that the 1^st Defendant availed a Housing Loan credit facility to the tune of Rs. 17,25,000/- for whichthe 2^nd Defendant stood as guarantor andfurther, an OSL Term Loan credit facility of Rs. 10,00,000 was availed by Defendant D1 as proprietor of D3, for working capital requirements for which D1 and D2 stood as guarantors.It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule properties.

¶20

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facility 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 amount forcing the Applicant

¶21

¶22

Bankto file this Application after classifying the accounts as NPA on

¶23

12.10.2018.

¶24

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear leading this Tribunal to proceed further after setting them exparte on 06.10.2022.

¶25

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked as Exbs. A1 to A20.

¶26

Heard.The following issues arise for consideration:

¶27

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

¶28

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are decided together

¶30

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. However, the prayer for penal interest is rejected.

¶31

In view of the above:

¶32

i. TA. No. 486of 2023stands allowed.

¶33

¶34

ii. Applicant Bankis permitted to recovera total amount of Rs.23,86,814.40/-(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fourteen and Paisa Forty Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest @ 11.50% on Rs.10,84,027.39/- and @15% on Rs.12,42,786.90/-, both with monthly restsfrom the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶35

iii. It is made clear that the defendants D1 and D2 are personally liable for all such amounts due in the Loan accounts.

¶36

iv. The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶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 Bankis allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed within 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶39

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶41

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 9^th day of February, 2024)

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

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

¶45

City Union Bank Ltd. v. Mr. K. Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Ltd. v. Mr. K. Anand

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

Bank of Baroda versus Mr.B.Gunasekaran

State Bank of India versus Vijay

Canara Bank versus N.Kulandaivel

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) versus Mr. S. Annamalai (Borrower)

Indian Overseas Bank, versus Mrs. Sudha

Canara Bank versus Mr.Natchinarkiniyan.G