Allowed

State Bank of India v. N.Ezhumalai

DRT7 Mar 2024TA/492/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's claim for a recovery certificate of Rs. 12,27,555.50 with future interest at 8% p.a., finding the applicant's un-rebutted evidence sufficient to prove the debt claim within limitation.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 12,27,555.50 with future and pendentelital interest at 8% p.a., recoverable from defendant personally and assets.

State Bank of India versus N.Ezhumalai — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 7^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.492 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.773/2019 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India, Kallakurichi Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager, 27, Gandhi Road, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

N.Ezhumalai, S/o.Narayanan, 1/5, North Street, Rengandadhapuram Village, Agarakottalam Post, Pin – 606 202. Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. … Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.R.Sumathy. Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶9

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶10

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.12,27,555.50 due in the Tractor and implements

¶11

loan availed by the defendant.

¶12

¶13

The Applicant contends that the defendant availed Tractor and Implements loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also stated that the said facility was secured by mortgage of ‘B’ schedule mentioned property and also by hypothecation of ‘A’ schedule mentioned Tractors and Trailer.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to appear he was set exparte on 06.03.2020.

¶17

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A13.

¶18

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶19

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶20

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶21

Both these issues are decided together.

¶22

¶23

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant 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 facility is for rural credit purpose and TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @8% p.a. (simple).

¶24

In view of the above

¶25

i) TA No.492/2022 stands allowed.

¶26

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.12,27,555.50 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousands Five Hundred Fifty Five and Paise Fifty only) with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant personally and also from his assets including the sale of ‘B’ schedule mentioned property and also by hypothecation of Tractors and Trailer, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶27

¶28

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶29

iv) Applicant 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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 7^th day of March, 2024)

¶33

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

¶34

State Bank of India v. N.Ezhumalai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. N.Ezhumalai

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

Karur Vysya Bank versus Mrs. Kavitha S

Canara Bank versus Nila Paper Mill rep by Managing Partner

M/s.Indian Bank versus Ms.G.Pavithra

State Bank of India versus Chakkrapani P

Bank of Baroda versus M/s.Mkr Stores

Bank of Baroda versus Mr R Thulasingam