Allowed

State Bank Of India v. K. Thanikachalam

DRT1 Mar 2024TA/613/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under the RDB Act. Evidence regarding the agricultural term loan and default was un-rebutted. The order permits recovery of the principal sum, future interest at 9% p.a., and sale of mortgaged/ hypothecated properties if insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate, amount to be recovered from respondent D1, sale of schedule properties, and district of future interest at 9% p.a. (simple).

State Bank Of India versus K. Thanikachalam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 1^st day ofMarch, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.613of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.505/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank Of India No.3, South Car Street, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District – 608 001 …Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

K. Thanikachalam S/o. U. Kannaiyan, No. 1/55A, Sivan Koil Street, Kumudimoolai Village and Post, Chidambaram Taluk Cuddalore District – 608 001

¶9

U. Kannaiyan (Deceased)

¶10

K. Anjali (Deceased) …Defendants

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.D. Mukundan Defendant D1 : Exparte Defendants D2 and D3 : Deceased ……

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.20,91,616/-under the Agricultural

¶15

Term Loan A/calong with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

The Applicant Bank contends thatan Agricultural Term Loancredit facility of Rs.5,25,000/- was availed by the defendant D1 whereas Defendants D2 and D3 stood as guarantors. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by hypothecation and mortgageof schedule mentioned properties.

¶19

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by the defendants on 14.11.2007, obliging to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶20

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

¶21

Summons was taken out and as defendant D1 failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 23.01.2020.During the course of the proceedings, it was reported that D2 and D3 expired and the Applicant Bank has filed a memo dated 18.10.2019 stating that D1 is the LR of deceased D2 and D3.

¶22

¶23

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit

¶24

in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A15.

¶25

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶26

i. Whether the Applicant Bank had proved the TA claim?

¶27

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are decided together.

¶29

The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank 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 TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, and the facility is for agricultural purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 9% p.a. (simple).

¶30

In view of the above:

¶31

i. TA. No: 613of 2022 stands allowed.

¶32

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.20,91,616/-(Rupees Twenty LakhsNinety OneThousand SixHundred and Sixteen Only/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 9% p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from D1and also proceeding against

¶33

¶34

and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate

¶35

the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶36

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶37

amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, D1is personally liable for all such amounts due.

¶38

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendants.

¶39

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

¶40

vi. Applicant Bank 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.

¶41

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 1^st day ofMarch, 2024)

¶44

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

¶45

State Bank Of India v. K. Thanikachalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank Of India v. K. Thanikachalam

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

South Indian Bank versus P Balamurugan

Laxmi Vilas Bank versus Chinnasamy

Am Premila a versus Premila

Indian Bank versus M/s.a.v.Constructions

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shahul Hameed

Union Bank of India versus Ars Natural Products