Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. M Senthil @ Senthilkumar

DRT27 Mar 2024TA/645/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The App. allowed the TA for issuance of a recovery certificate. The court finds the claim proved as unrebutted, calculating the principal within limitation and awarding 8% annual simple interest due to the agricultural nature of the loan.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for ₹21,30,020/- plus 8% p.a. simple interest on principal and pending amounts, recoverable from defendants jointly and severally or by sale of assets.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. M Senthil @… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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.645 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.536 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.645 of 2023)

¶7

Indian Overseas Bank Karambakudi Branch Rep. by its Senior Manager Karambakudi, Pudukkottai District - 622 302

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. M Senthil @ Senthilkumar S/o. Late Mr. Muthu Mannu Velar Neyveli Village and Post, Orathanadu Taluk Thanjavur District

¶11

Mr. M.Vijayakumar S/o. Late Mr. Muthu Mannu Velar Neyveli Village and Post, Orathanadu Taluk Thanjavur District

¶12

Mrs.M. Thangappa W/o.late Muthu Mannu Velar Neyveli Village and Post, Orathanadu Taluk Thanjavur District

¶13

Ms. M.Mala D/o. Late Muthu Mannu Velar Neyveli Village and Post, Orathanadu Taluk Thanjavur District

¶14

Ms. M Susila D/o. Late. Muthu Mannu Velar Neyveli Village and Post, Orathanadu Taluk Thanjavur District

¶15

Mr. M. Ramasamy (Deceased)

¶16

Mrs. R.Raja S/o. Mr. R.Ramasamy Mannu Velar Neyveli Village and Post, Orathanadu Taluk Thanjavur District

¶17

¶18

Mr. R Venkatesan S/o. Late R Ramasamy Mannu Velar Neyveli Village and Post, Orathanadu Taluk Thanjavur District …Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s Ananda Gomathy Counsel for Defendants 1 to 5, 7 &8 : Ex-parte

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

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. 21,30,020/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Thirty Thousand Twenty only) due in Credit Facility of agricultural term loan availed by the defendants.

¶22

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

¶23

The Applicant contents that a credit facility of Rs. 6,24,000/ - was availed by the defendants 1 to 8 stood as a guarantors. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of scheduled properties and hypothecation of Tractor.

¶24

The Applicant further contents 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 amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶25

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to appear they were set exparte. Though the 6^th defendant expired, the defendants 7 and 8 were the legal heirs and the same is recorded as bank filed a memo in that regard.

¶26

¶27

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Ext A1 to A15.

¶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. 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 contractual rate and the same is allowed, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8% per annum (simple). More over this is because the facility is for agricultural purpose.

¶33

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

¶34

(a) TA No. 645 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶35

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 21,30,020/(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Thirty Thousand Twenty 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 their assets including the sale of schedule

¶36

¶37

mentioned property and by sale of hypotheca after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶38

(c) 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

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. M Senthil @ Senthilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr. M Senthil @ Senthilkumar

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