Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. Joseph

DRT2 Feb 2024TA/751/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal addressed an application under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act for a Recovery Certificate. The court found the applicant's evidence un-rebutted and proved, allowing the claim and ordering the issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of the due amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Ta claim allowed; Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 21,01,089 with future and pendentelite interest at 14.25% p.a. simple.

City Union Bank Limited versus Joseph — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 2^nd day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.751 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No. 48/2020 -DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

City Union Bank Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Thanjavur Medical College Branch, Sindu Complex, 115, Medical College Road, Kennedy Square, Thanjavur – 613 007. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

X. Joseph, S/o. Xavier, No.26, Nala Nagar, Mathakottai Road, Thanjavur – 613 007. Also At: Old No. 167, New No. 159, South Street, Thirumalai Samuthiram, Thanjavur – 613 401. …Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.Sriram. Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶9

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery

¶10

¶11

Certificate for Rs.21,01,089/- due in the credit facility of CFGT Term Loan availed by the defendant.

¶12

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs.18,75,000/- was availed by the defendant. It is also stated that the facility is secured by hypothecation of movables as stated in the schedule.

¶13

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.

¶14

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to appear, he was set exparte on 31.01.2023.

¶15

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A7.

¶16

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶17

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶18

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶19

Both these issues are decided together.

¶20

The Applicant’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible

¶21

and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant is found

¶22

¶23

to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since, TA claim is arrived by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendentelite and future interest is awarded at simple.

¶24

In view of the above:

¶25

i) TA No.751 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶26

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.21,01,089/(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs One Thousand And Eighty Nine Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest @14.25% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant and his assets including the hypotheca after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA .

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 2^nd day of February, 2024)

¶33

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

¶34

City Union Bank Limited v. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Joseph

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

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., versus Ms.S.Kotteswari

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/s. Prithvi Engineering Industries

Bank of Baroda, versus T.Sumathi

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Ayyanar Enterprises

M/s.City Union Bank Ltd., versus The Srinivasa Traders

Canara Bank versus Ragini