Allowed

Canara Bank v. a.Manjula

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for a recovery certificate under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act. The claim was un-rebutted and within limitation. The applicant was directed to recover the principal amount along with future and pendentelite interest at 10% p.a. and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 59,45,792/- with future and pendentelite interest @ 10% p.a. and permission to recover dues from assets.

Canara Bank versus a.Manjula — Banking and Recovery | 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

TA.No.794 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.304/2021 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Canara Bank, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Karaikadu Branch, Vridhachalam Road, Kannarapettai, Cuddalore District. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

A.Manjula, W/o.Anbalagan, # 1102, South Street, Muthandikuppam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. PAN No:DWAPM3268R. … Defendant.

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.K.Anbarasan. Defendant : Exparte. ……

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶12

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.59,45,792/- due in loan on goods availed by the defendant.

¶13

The Applicant contends that the defendant availed loan on goods for a sum of Rs.47,34,000/- for developing business, of cashew farming.

¶14

¶15

It is stated that the said facility was secured by hypothecation of stocks.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

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.

¶18

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to enter appearance, she was set exparte on 18.05.2022.

¶19

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A15.

¶20

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶21

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶22

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶23

Both these issues are decided together.

¶24

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence, the Applicant is found to

¶25

¶26

be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation

¶27

and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @10% p.a. (simple).

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) TA No.794/2023 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.59,45,792/(Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Forty Five Thousands Seven Hundred and Ninety Two only) with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant and also from her assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Canara Bank v. a.Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. a.Manjula

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