Allowed

Canara Bank v. N.Kulandaivel

DRT8 Feb 2024TA/692/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank’s transfer application, confirming the due loan amount and awarding recovery with interest at 9% p.a. The court directed issuance of a recovery certificate and sale of mortgaged property to satisfy the debt.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 14,06,692 with future and pendent lite interest at 9% p.a.; sale of schedule properties; issuance of recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus N.Kulandaivel — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 8^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.692 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.139/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Canara Bank, Nainarpalayam, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District – 606 301. Represented by its Senior Manager. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

N.Kulandaivel, S/o.Nalliyappa Gounder, Kattu Kottagai, V Mamandhur, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.R.Sumathy. Defendant : Exparte. ……

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The above Transfer Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.14,06,692/- due in the credit facilities

¶11

of Minor irrigation loan and Kisan credit card availed by the defendant.

¶12

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively were availed by the defendant. It is also

¶13

¶14

stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned

¶15

properties and hypothecation.

¶16

The Applicant further contends 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 defendant pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application after declaring the account as NPA on 14.12.2015.

¶17

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to appear he was set exparte on 07.05.2019.

¶18

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A20.

¶19

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶20

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶21

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶22

Both these issues are decided together.

¶23

The Applicant’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant is found

¶24

to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the

¶25

¶26

facilities are for agricultural purpose, pendentelite and future

¶27

interest is awarded at 9% p.a. (simple).

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) TA No.692 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 14,06,692/(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Six Thousands Six Hundred and Ninety Two only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant and his assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by proceeding against hypothecation.

¶31

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendant and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶32

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

¶33

v) 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.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 8^th day of February, 2024)

¶38

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

¶39

Canara Bank v. N.Kulandaivel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. N.Kulandaivel

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Radhakrishnan

Indian Overseas Bank versus Suns Food Company

Indian Bank versus M/s.Thirumalai Stores

Bank of Baroda versus S.Anjalatchi

Union Bank of India versus Mr. N. Balu

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus Mr. Senapathi Sivashanmuga Devar