Allowed

Indian Bank v. Balakrishnan

DRT21 Mar 2024TA/527/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a time-adjusted application filed by Indian Bank against T. Balakrishnan and Mrs. R. Sarala for a home loan default. The court admitted un-rebutted evidence, calculated the claim of Rs. 21,21,503 plus 10% p.a. simple interest, and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate while excluding interest for a specific period.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 21,21,503 with pendentelitis and future interest @10% p.a. simple; exclusion of interest from 24.11.2021 to 01.03.2024.

Indian Bank versus Balakrishnan — Banking and Recovery | 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

TA.No.527 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.436/2020 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Indian Bank, Represented by its Chief Manager, Nungambakkam Branch, 9, 7^th Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

T.Balakrishnan, S/o.V.M.Thirugnanam, R/O.No.10/5,1^st Floor, 92^nd Street, SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 49.

¶9

Mrs.R.Sarala, W/o. Mr.T.Balakrishnan, R/O.No.10/5,1^st Floor, 92^nd Street, SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 49. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.R.Sumathy. Defendants : Exparte.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery

¶13

¶14

Certificate for Rs.21,21,503/- due in Home Loan availed by the defendants.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the defendants availed Home Loan of Rs.26,64,000/- for which 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor. It is stated that the said facility was secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned property.

¶16

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

¶17

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application. The applicant stated that the mortgaged asset was sold under SARFAESI Act and the sale proceeds of Rs.15,80,000/- was credited to the account of 1^st defendant and this TA is filed for balance claim amount.

¶18

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance they were set exparte on 24.11.2021.

¶19

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A19.

¶20

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶22

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶23

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are decided together.

¶25

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 claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @10% p.a. (simple). However, in pursuant to the orders of this Tribunal vide proceedings dt.06.10.2022 the applicant bank is not entitled to the interest from 24.11.2011 till marking is completed (i.e.) on 01.03.2024.

¶26

In view of the above

¶27

i) TA No.527/2023 stands allowed.

¶28

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.21,21,503/(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Twenty One Thousands Five Hundred and Three only) with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till 24.11.2021 and from 01.03.2024 till realization from the

¶29

¶30

defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA. No interest is allowed for the period from 24.11.2021 to 01.03.2024.

¶31

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the

¶32

Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 21^st day of March, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

Indian Bank v. Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Balakrishnan

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