Allowed

Bank of India v. J. Selvakannan

DRT6 Feb 2024TA/779/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT II Chennai allowed the bank's application for a Recovery Certificate. The bank proved its claim for loan dues via affidavit evidence which was unrebutted. The court awarded the principal with future interest at 9% p.a. and directed sale of mortgaged properties if needed.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 18,46,608.69/- plus future interest at 9% p.a. allowing sale of schedule properties and order for costs.

Bank of India versus J. Selvakannan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 6^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No. 779 of 2023

¶5

(Old TA.No.36/2019-DRT-I,Chennai) (Old OA.No.200/2018-DRT-III, Chennai)

¶6

Bank of India Kumarakudi Branch, Main Road, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

J. Selvakannan S/o. Jeganathan 1/52, Anna Nagar, Cholatharam, Kumarakudi, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore – 608 701

¶10

J. Selvakumar S/o. Jeganathan 1/52, Anna Nagar, Cholatharam Kumarakudi, Kattumannarkoil Cuddalore – 608 701

¶11

P. Dhanasangu S/o. Perumal I Ward, Anna Nagar, Cholatharam Kumarakudi, Kattumannarkoil Cuddalore – 608 702

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Orbit Law Services Defendants : Exparte.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.18,46,608.69/- i.e. Rs. 15,21,430.45/due in Term/Mortgage Loan A/c and Rs. 3,25,178.24/- due in the Demand/Crop Loan A/c along with further interest as prayed for.

¶17

The Applicant Bank further contends that credit facilitiesto the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- under Term/Mortgage Loan and Rs. 1,50,000/under Crop/Demand Loan was availed by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants as Borrowers. The 3^rd defendant stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by Defendants D1 and D2.It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule properties and hypothecation.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearanceleading this Tribunal to proceed further, after setting them exparte on 08.04.2019.

¶21

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Exbs A1 to A19.

¶22

Heard.The following issues arise for consideration.

¶23

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

¶24

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

The Applicant Bank evidence remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove theTA 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 facility is for agricultural purpose, the pendentelite and future interest is awarded @ 9% p.a. (simple).

¶27

In view of the above

¶28

i. TA. No: 779 of 2023stands allowed.

¶29

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover a total amount of Rs.18,46,608.69P (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Eight and Sixty Nine Paise Only)with future and

¶30

¶31

pendentelite interest @ 9%p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶32

iii. The schedule mentioned properties to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants are jointly and severally liableand their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶33

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

¶34

v. Applicant Bankis allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶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-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 6^th day of February, 2024)

¶38

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

¶39

Bank of India v. J. Selvakannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. J. Selvakannan

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 Bank versus S Muthukumaran and Two Othres

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus P.Duraibabu

Bank of Baroda versus Mr.M.Suresh

State Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Jayalakshmi Dhayalan Solid & Hollow Bricks

Canara Bank versus M/s. Arv Wash Tech

M/s.Canara Bank, versus Mr.M.Ramesh