Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Bhuvaneswari

DRT20 Feb 2024TA/744/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a TA filed under the RDB Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for recovery of an outstanding home loan amount of Rs. 46,80,197/- along with interest from the borrowers and their secured property. The defendants failed to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 46,80,197/- with future and pendentelite interest @ 9% p.a. (simple) from defendants personally and through sale of scheduled property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Bhuvaneswari — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT CHENNAI Dated this 20^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No.744 of 2022 (Old OA No.146/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

Indian Overseas Bank, Kumbakonam Main Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Gopal Rao Library Building, Town Hall Road, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Thanjavur District. IFSC Code No.IOBA0000044.

¶5

… Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mrs.R.Bhuvaneswari, W/o.U.Senthilkumar, No.635, Periyar Nagar, Rajagopalapuram, Pudukkottai - 622 003. Pudukkottai District.

¶8

Mr.U.Senthilnathan, S/o.P.Udaiyappan, No.635, Periyar Nagar, Rajagopalapuram, Pudukkottai - 622 003. Pudukkottai District. … Defendants

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.Kumararaja. Counsel for Defendants : M/s. K.Venkatapathy.

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.46,80,197/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of the schedule mentioned properties.

¶13

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶14

The 1^st defendant as the borrower and 2^nd defendant as co-obligant approached the applicant for availing a Term Loan under Home Loan to NRI Scheme for a sum of Rs.38,00,000/-.

¶15

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

¶16

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 1^st defendant had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned property.

¶17

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 31.03.2017.

¶18

¶19

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the applicant had on 29.05.2017 caused to issue a demand notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶21

The defendants had filed a reply statement contending that the applicant failed to provide proper statement and that the amount claimed as due is not the actual amount. It is also stated that the bank had capitalized penal interest.

¶22

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A15 and got the same marked in evidence. No defense evidence was let in by the defendants.

¶23

¶24

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶25

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim? ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶27

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed, as no contra evidence is available from the side of the defendants. Even though the written statement is filed, no evidence supporting the same is adduced. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit facility availed is for the purpose of housing loan and TA claim is arrived at by calculating

¶28

¶29

interest at agreed rate, which is on the higher side pendentelite and

¶30

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

¶31

In view of the findings as entered above:

¶32

i) TA No.744/2022 stands allowed.

¶33

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.46,80,197/(Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Eighty Thousand One Hundred Ninety Seven only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the defendants personally and also by proceeding against and sale of the schedule mentioned property after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day of February, 2024)

¶40

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

¶41

Indian Overseas Bank v. Bhuvaneswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Bhuvaneswari

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 M.Rajesh Kumar

State Bank of India, versus Mr.S.Syed Ghouse

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam

Idbi Bank versus Sangeetha

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s.C.K.Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Balasubramanian D