Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Renuka

DRT27 Mar 2024TA/592/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against the legal representatives of the deceased borrower. The Court held evidence was un-rebutted but liability of legal representatives is limited to the inherited estate. Future interest awarded at 7% simple.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 36,47,815 with future interest at 7% simple interest per annum from date of filing till realization, recoverable from the defendants' inherited estate.

Canara Bank versus Mrs. Renuka — Company and Corporate | 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.592 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-III Chennai as OA No.589 of 2017 and transferred to DRT-I Chennai and renumbered as TA No.252 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and

¶7

Renumbered as TA No.592 of 2023)

¶8

Canara Bank Tirupattur Branch Represented by its Manager No.48, Krishnagiri Road Tirupattur, Vellore District – 635 001 ….Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mrs. Renuka W/o Late Mr. Narayanan Chetty Perampattyu Village and Post Tirupattur Taluk

¶11

Vellore District

¶12

Mrs. Deepa D/o Late Mr. Narayanan Chetty Perampattyu Village and Post Tirupattur Taluk Vellore District

¶13

Mr. Nandha Kumar S/o Late Mr. Narayanan Chetty Perampattyu Village and Post Tirupattur Taluk Vellore District

¶14

Ms. Indhumathi D/o Late Mr. Narayanan Chetty Perampattyu Village and Post Tirupattur Taluk Vellore District ….Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. M. Muthukumaran Counsel for Defendants : M/s K. Moorthy

¶16

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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. 36,47,815(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifteen only) due in the credit facilities of agricultural term loan and Kisan Credit card availed by Late Narayanan.

¶19

The defendants are the legal representatives of the deceased borrower.

¶20

This TA is originally filed before DRT-III and then transferred to DRT-I and thereafter to this Tribunal and got renumbered as above.

¶21

The Applicant contends that a credit facilities of Rs. 9,68,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/and Rs.2,30,100/- were availed by the deceased borrower as Farm Development Loan, Kisan Credit card and Farm Machinery Loan respectively. It is also the case of the applicant that the loan was availed by creation of security by hypothecation over the movables and also the mortgage of scheduled properties.

¶22

It is further contended by the applicant that after the death of the deceased borrower the legal representatives of the deceased borrower visited the bank and further acknowledged the liability of debt in all three loans. It is also stated that the tractor purchased by availing the loan was sold with the consent of the defendants as the defendants surrendered the same and an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been appropriated in the respective loan accounts.

¶23

It is contended by the applicant that the defendant despite acknowledging the liability had failed in making the repayment resulting the applicant is issuing a

¶24

¶25

lawyer notice dated 21.3.2014 and despite the same no repayment was forth coming this TA is filed.

¶26

The defendants entered appearance and filed their reply statement contending inter alia that they have no information or knowledge about the credit facilities and had also disputed the so claimed acknowledgment of debt. However the signatures in the documents are not seriously disputed by the defendants. The defendants further deny their liability.

¶27

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Ext A1 to A36. Despite granting sufficient opportunity no counter proof affidavit was filed.

¶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 remained un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove TA claim. Even though the defendant had filed a reply statement, there is no serious dispute as to the liability of the deceased borrower and the right of the bank to proceed against the scheduled properties. In respect of the loan documents also the defendants have no serious dispute. Even though the acknowledgment of debt and security from the legal representatives are produced as A25, A26 and A27, the same is not

¶33

¶34

sufficient to bind the legal representatives with personal liability. 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 and also taking note of the fact that the facilities are for agricultural purpose pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 7% per annum (simple).

¶35

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

¶36

(a) TA No.592 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶37

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 36,47,815(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifteen only) with future and pendente lite interest @ 7% PA (simple)from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA/TA by proceedings against scheduled properties. The liability of the defendants is limited to the estate inherited by them from the deceased borrower.

¶38

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

¶39

(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.

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Renuka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Renuka

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