Allowed

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Palkannan

DRT12 Feb 2024TA/588/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the defendant's exparte transfer application. It directed recovery of the claimed principal amount along with interest at 10% per annum from the defendant's personal assets and hypothecated vehicle, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,87,837.36 with future interest at 10% p.a. from defendant's assets and hypothecated vehicle; issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Palkannan — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI Dated this 12^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.588 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.337/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Canara Bank, Aminjikarai Branch, No.6/20, Govindan Street, Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. Rep. by its Chief Manager. … Applicant. (Amendment carried out as per order dated 30.06.2022 in memo)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr.P.Palkannan, S/o.Perumal, No.8260, TNHB Colony, Ayyapakkam, Chennai – 600 077. … Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.Sreenivasulu. Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶8

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery

¶9

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.26,87,837.36 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the

¶10

¶11

same to be recovered from the defendant, his assets and also by proceedings against and selling hypothecated vehicle.

¶12

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

¶13

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶14

The defendant had applied for and availed a credit facility for Rs.26,00,000/- and in lieu of the security had hypothecated the vehicle in favour of erstwhile Syndicate Bank which later got amalgamated with the applicant bank.

¶15

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of

¶16

necessary loan documents obliging to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail in equal installments of Rs.57,600/-.

¶17

Even though the defendant had obliged himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, he failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA.

¶18

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting him to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the applicant had on 12.02.2017

¶19

¶20

caused to issue a notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶22

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 16.10.2023.

¶23

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A12 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶25

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim?

¶26

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and his assets (including the hypothecated vehicle). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at calculating interest at agreed rate the prayer for a calculating interest at monthly rest is rejected and interest is

¶30

awarded at 10% p.a. (simple).

¶31

In view of the finding as entered above

¶32

i) TA No.588 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶33

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.26,87,837.36 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousands Eight Hundred Thirty Seven and Thirty Six only) with future and pendentelate interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant personally and his assets including by proceeding

¶34

¶35

against hypothecated vehicle after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 12^th day of February, 2024)

¶41

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

¶42

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Palkannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Palkannan

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 M/s.Subish Plastics

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. v. Pachamuthu

Bank of India versus Veeralakshmi

Hdfc Bank versus Kandaswamy Rajalakshmi

Indian Bank versus Rare India Exim Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Mr. S. Parthasarathy