Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased)

DRT19 Mar 2024TA/710/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for issuance of a recovery certificate. It held the applicant entitled to recover Rs.28,49,353/- with future interest at 9% p.a. from respondents jointly and severally, noting the first respondent's liability is limited to inherited assets.

What did the court decide?

TA No.710/2022 allowed; Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.28,49,353/- with future interest at 9% p.a.; cost of proceedings allowed.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased) — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 19^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.710 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.538/2019 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Indian Overseas Bank, Pudupatti Branch, (IFSC : IOBA0000073), Represented by its Senior Manager, No.27, Jayam Building, West Car Street, Pudupatti, Pudukottai District - 622 408.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr.V.Ramaiah (Deceased)

¶10

(a) Mrs.R.Lakshmi, (Legal Heir of Mr.V.Ramaiah), No.2/214, Vadakki Patti, Nagarapatti Post, Poonamaravathy Taluk, Pudukottai District – 622 401.

¶11

(b) Mr.R.Manickavel, (Legal Heir of Mr.V.Ramaiah), No.18/1, Vadakki Patti, Nagarapatti Post, Poonamaravathy Taluk, Pudukottai District – 622 401.

¶12

Mr.R.Manickavel,

¶13

S/o.Mr.V.Ramaiah, No.18/1, Vadakki Patti, Nagarapatti Post, Poonamaravathy Taluk, Pudukottai District – 622 401.

¶14

… Defendants.

¶15

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Ananda Gomathy. Defendants : Exparte.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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 Rs.28,49,353/- due in the Term Loan availed by the defendants.

¶19

The Applicant contends that the defendants availed Term Loan for construction of House for Rs.20,00,000/-. It is stated that the said facility was secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned property.

¶20

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

¶21

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants 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.

¶22

Summons was taken out and the summons sent to D1 was returned with endorsement ‘deceased’ and D2 has been delivered. As the 1^st defendant was deceased his legal heirs were impleaded as defendant

¶23

Nos.1(a) and 1(b) and defendant No.1(b) though impleaded is none

¶24

¶25

other than the 2^nd defendant and never ordered to be deleted. As the defendants 1(a) and 1(b) who is the 2^nd defendant failed to appear they were set exparte on 03.08.2022.

¶26

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A10.

¶27

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶28

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶29

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are decided together.

¶31

The Applicant’s evidence remains 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 to be entitled for the TA claim. However the liability of defendant no.1(a) is limited to the extent of assets inherited from her husband, 1^st defendant. 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, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @ 9% p.a. (simple).

¶32

¶33

In view of the above

¶34

i) TA No.710/2022 stands allowed.

¶35

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.28,49,353/(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Forty Nine Thousands Three Hundred and Fifty Three only) from the defendants 1(a) and 2 jointly, severally and also from their assets with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization including the sale of schedule mentioned mortgaged property, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA. However, the liability of defendant no.1(a) is limited to the extent of assets inherited from her husband, deceased 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant is personally liable for the debt.

¶36

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

¶37

iv) 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.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 19^th day of March, 2024)

¶42

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

¶43

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased)

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

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Karunakaran

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar

Union Bank of India versus Mr K Ramalingam and Fifty Others

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Pethanatchi Dhall Mill