Allowed

Indian Bank v. Nageswaran

DRT25 Mar 2024TA/644/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank’s application for a recovery certificate. The court proved the true account claim and awarded recovery of the principal amount plus future interest at 9% p.a. (simple), permitting sale of mortgaged properties and personal liability for insufficient proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 37,13,81,446/- plus future interest at 9% p.a. (simple). Defendants jointly and severally liable; sale of schedule properties permitted.

Indian Bank versus Nageswaran — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 25^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.644of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.405/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Indian Bank Easwari Nagar Branch, …Applicant Vs. 1. Mr. M. P. Nageswaran S/o. Mr. P. Murugesan No. 35/36, Natarajapuram North 2^nd Street, Medical College Road, Thanjavur - 4 2. Mr. P. Murugesan (Deceased) 3. Mrs. M. Menaka W/o. Mr. P. Murugesan No. 35/36, Natarajapuram North 2^nd Street, Medical College Road, Thanjavur – 4 4. Ms. M. Padmasri D/o. Mr. P. Murugesan No. 35/36, Natarajapuram North 2^nd Street, Medical College Road, Thanjavur – 4 ...Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P. V. Murlidhar Counsel for Defendants : M/s. G. Sanjeevi ……

¶6

¶7

ORDER

¶8

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.37,13,81,446/-due underthe Mortgage Loan A/c along with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶9

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

¶10

The Applicant Bank contends thata Mortgage Loan credit facilitiy of Rs. 34,00,00,000/- was availed by the 1stDefendant. The Defendants 3 and 4 and the deceased D2 stood as the Guarantors. It is also stated that the facilities are secured bymortgageof schedulementioned properties.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

¶14

The defendants filed reply statementadmitting the availment of the credit facility but contends that the facility was offered with reduced interest rate. The defendantsare further admitting the defaults, however contends that the request of OTS was not accepted.

¶15

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A11. The defendant had filed a CPA reiterating the contentions of the reply statement.

¶16

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶17

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

¶18

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶19

Both these issues are decided together.

¶20

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. The defendants are admitting the availment of credit facility and defaults.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, which is on the higher side,prayer formonthly restsis declined and interest is awarded at 9% p.a.

¶21

¶22

(simple).During the pendency of the TA, the applicant has filed a part satisfaction memo stating that the defendants have remitted a sum of Rs. 17,48,00,000/- and the same is recorded.

¶23

In view of the above:

¶24

i. TA. No: 644of 2022 stands allowed.

¶25

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.37,13,81,446/-(Rupees Thirty Seven CroresThirteenLakhs Eighty One Thousand FourHundred and Forty Six Only/)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 9%p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severallyand also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶26

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are personally liable for all such amounts due.

¶27

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the pendency of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendantsincluding the amount of part satisfaction for Rs. 17,48,00,000/-.

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

receipt of the copy of the order.

¶32

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 25^th day ofMarch, 2024)

¶35

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

¶36

Indian Bank v. Nageswaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Nageswaran

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

Hdfc Bank versus Kathiresan Kailasappan

Canara Bank versus Mr J Arul

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Simma Associates

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh