Allowed

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. B Balaji

DRT27 Mar 2024TA/543/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for a certified copy of a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the Tribunal found the bank's evidence un-rebutted and issued an order permitting recovery of the principal amount with future interest via joint and several restitution.

What did the court decide?

The recovery certificate was allowed; the bank was permitted to recover the principal amount of Rs. 75,35,780.13 plus future interest from the defendants and through the sale of mortgaged properties.

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus B Balaji — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No. 543 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.417/2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.543 of 2023)

¶7

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd Shree Bhavan, T.S. No. 5504/05 Marthandapuram 1^st street Pudukottai-622001 Rep. by its Senior Manager

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

B Balaji S/o Mr. Balan No.5/285, Mariamman Koil Street Venugopal Nagar, Thiruverumbur Trichy – 620 019

¶11

Mr. K Senthilkumar S/o Karuppaiah No.8/19, Theradi Street, Virachilai, Thirumayam, Pudukottai – 622 412

¶12

Mrs. K Vijayakumari W/o Karuppaiah No.8/19, Theradi Street, Virachilai, Thirumayam, Pudukottai – 622 412

¶13

Mr. R M Karuppiah S/o Ramaiyah Thevar No.8/19, Theradi Street, Virachilai, Thirumayam, Pudukottai – 622 412

¶14

Mrs. S. Subashini W/o Senthilkumar No.8/19, Theradi Street, Virachilai, Thirumayam, Pudukottai – 622 412

¶15

Mrs. Annie W/o Mr. John No.22, Rosery Church 1^st street Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004

¶16

¶17

Mr. A Kathiravan S/o Late Mr. Antony No.21, Ambedkar 2^nd street, Vellanur Village, Chennai – 600 062 …Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s S. Parthasarathy Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 75,35,780.13 (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty and Thirteen paisa only) due in Credit Facility of pledge Loan availed by the 1^st defendant.

¶21

The above TA was originally filed before DRT-I and got transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶22

The Applicant contents that a credit facility of Rs. 65,23,000/- was availed by the 1^st defendant and originally 2^nd defendant stood as guarantors. It is also stated that further time as requested was granted and defendants 3 to 5 and 7 extended additional guarantee and 3^rd defendant executed mortgage of schedule A property. It is also contended that additional security was also provided by mortgage of B scheduled property by 6^th defendant.

¶23

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 defendants pay back the

¶24

¶25

amount including issuance of a demand notice on 2.1.2019 failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶26

A reply statement was filed by the defendant putting forward a general denial. However the availment of credit facility is admitted.

¶27

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Ext A1 to A15. No counter proof affidavit was filed despite being provided with opportunity.

¶28

Heard, the following issues arise for consideration: -

¶29

(i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶30

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are decided together.

¶32

The Applicant evidence remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove TA claim. Hence the Applicant is to be found 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 and the same is not interfered with pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8% per annum (simple).

¶33

In view of the above, the following order is passed: -

¶34

(a) TA No. 543 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶35

¶36

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 75,35,780.13p (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty and Thirteen paisa only) with future and pendente lite interest @ 8% PA (simple) from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA/TA, from the defendant jointly, severally and personally and also by sale of schedule mentioned properties after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶37

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

¶38

(d) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶40

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 27^th day of March, 2024)

¶41

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

¶42

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. B Balaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. B Balaji

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

Canara Bank versus G. Edison

Bank of Baroda versus Jayakandan

State Bank of India versus Mr. S. Natarajan

State Bank of India versus Paramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri Vivekananda Builders

Canara Bank versus Mr. S. Pannerselvam