Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. C. Prakasam

DRT15 Feb 2024TA/786/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of an outstanding agricultural loan default of Rs.11,47,125/- with interest, permitting joint and several recovery and sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.11,47,125/- with interest at 9% p.a. simple from filing of TA till realization, jointly and severally, and permission to sell schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.786 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.11 of 2020 and thereafter transferred

¶7

to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.786 of 2022)

¶8

Canara Bank Rep. by its Manager Having Office at No.4, Alangayam Main Road Madapalli Branch, Madavalam Post Vellore District – 635 653 …Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. C. Prakasam S/o. Mr. Chinnapaya Gounder 2/113 C, Saga Devan Vattam A.K. Mottur, Pudupoongulam Tirupattur - 635653

¶11

Mr. M. Selvamani S/o. Mr. Muniyappa Gounder Pudupoongulam, Jamunapudur post Tirupattur – 635653 …Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B. Narasimhan Defendants : Ex-parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

The above Original Application is filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.11,47,125/- with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendant jointly and severally and also by ordering sale of the schedule properties.

¶15

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶16

The applicant contends that defendants had availed following credit facilities on 4.9.2010, 6.9.2011 and 4.2.2011 respectively viz., Agricultural Farm machinery loan Rs.2,16,000/-, Agricultural Farm development loan Rs.1,56,400/- and Kisan credit card scheme Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶17

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

¶18

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule properties. Over and above the same hypothecation over the movables were also created in lieu of security to the Kisan Credit Cards.

¶19

It is also stated that the defendants had also issued acknowledgment of debt dated 28.2.2013, 7.9.2014, 17.2.2016 and 19.1.2017.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the

¶23

applicant to file this OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶24

Even as the defendants though entered appearance had failed to file written statement and failed to appear resulting them set ex-parte on 21.2.2023.

¶25

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A27 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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

¶27

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim?

¶28

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. 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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their/ his assets (including the scheduled property) the claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit facilities are admittedly for

¶31

agricultural operations, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate 9%.

¶32

In view of the finding as entered above, the following order is passed: -

¶33

(a) TA No.786 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶34

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.11,47,125/- being the total due amount with future and pendente lite interest @9% PA (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severally and also by proceeding against them personally and by proceeding against and selling their assets including the schedule mortgaged properties, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶35

(b) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms.

¶36

(c) 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.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶38

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this 15^th day of February, 2024)

¶39

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

Canara Bank v. Mr. C. Prakasam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. C. Prakasam

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

State Bank of India versus v.Jayamoorthy

Uco Bank versus M/s.Ahb Isfa Traders

Canara Bank versus Mr.T.Subramani (Deceased)

Bank of Baroda versus P Gunasekaran

Punjab National Bank versus Thirupathy

Punjab & Sind Bank versus Mr. Tagore Sampath Jaikumar a