Allowed

Central Bank of India v. C Sumathi

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/762/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for a Traceable Amount (TA) claim of approximately Rs. 59 lakhs, involving an overdraft and loan account default, ordering a recovery certificate and sale of mortgaged properties to recover the dues from the defendant.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 59,07,959/- with future interest; order to sell schedule properties and appropriate proceeds; defendant held personally liable for any shortfall; costes allowed to

Central Bank of India versus C Sumathi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.762 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.166/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Central Bank of India EndiyurBranch No. 49, Anna Statue Street Endiyur Post Villupuram District - 604 002 …Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

C. Sumathi W/o L. Chandrakumar Prop. M/s Ayyannar Poultry Farm No. 20 – 11/ 1, West Canal Road Kottor, Chennai - 600086. ...Defendant

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.V.D.Chellapa Defendants : Exparte ……

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.59,07,959/-due in the two credit facilitiesi.e. Rs. 48,37,871/- due under the OD account No. 3673598387 and Rs. 10,70,088/- due under Overdraft Account No.

¶12

¶13

3683913976 alongwith future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶14

The Applicant Bank contends thatcredit facilities of Rs.40,00,000/and Rs.10,00,000/- for Working Capital under ALT – Poultry Scheme respectively were availed by the defendant. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶15

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents on 12.6.2018 and 13.4.2018 by the defendant, obliging to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶16

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amounts, the defendant failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendant pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶17

Summons was taken out and as defendant failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 29.09.2022.

¶18

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

¶19

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶20

i. Whether the Applicant Bank had proved the TA claim?

¶21

¶22

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶23

Both these issues are decided together.

¶24

1. The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank is found to be 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 agreed rate, prayer for monthly rests is declined.

¶25

In view of the above:

¶26

i. TA. No: 762of 2023 stands allowed.

¶27

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.59,07,959/-(Rupees fifty nine lakhs seven thousand ninehundred and fifty nineOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 11.60% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 48,37,871/- and @ 11.50% p.a. (simple) onRs. 10,70,088/from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendantand also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶28

¶29

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due.

¶30

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan accounts of the defendant.

¶31

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

¶32

vi. Applicant Bank 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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 26^th day of March, 2024)

¶36

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

¶37

Central Bank of India v. C Sumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. C Sumathi

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

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh

State Bank of India versus Cm Atheequr Rahman Co.

State Bank of India versus P. Kaviyarasan

Indian Bank versus M/s. Balaji Enterprises