Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Thirupathy

DRT15 Feb 2024TA/81/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of Rs.47.67 lakhs plus interest. The respondent was absent, evidence remained uncontroverted, and the claim was found valid and within the limitation period.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 47,67,898/- with future and pendente lite interest @12% (simple) from the defendant and his assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Thirupathy — 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.81 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.685 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.81 of 2022)

¶7

Punjab National Bank Nungambakkam Branch Rep. by its Chief Manager New No.9, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai – 600 034 …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. L. Thirupathy S/o Mr. Lakshmanan No.1/614, Cholamandalam Devi Nagar Injambakkam Chennai – 600 115 …Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s M.L Ganesh & S. Arun Kumar Defendant : Ex-parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.47,67,898/- with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendant personally and from his assets.

¶13

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

¶14

The applicant contends that the defendant had approached the applicant on 31.7.2015 seeking financial assistance for the purchase of 8 Indigo Taxi Cars

¶15

¶16

and got sanctioned and disbursed a credit facility of Rs.46 Lakhs on 28.5.2015.

¶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 in 58 monthly installments of Rs.1,05,500/-.

¶18

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the vehicles were created as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶19

It is further case of the applicant that since the defendant committed default in repayment the applicant had seized the hypothecated vehicles and sold the same through auction and thereby realized and amount of Rs.13,14,000/-. It is further case of the applicant that the defendant is liable to pay back the outstanding amount due in the account. It is also stated that the credit facility availed by the applicant is secured by CGTMSE scheme which will not exonerate the defaulter.

¶20

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. Even though no repayment was made despite repeated request the applicant had on 16.8.2018 issue a legal notice.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶22

¶23

Even as the defendants though entered appearance had failed to file written statement and failed to appear resulting them set ex-parte on 2.1.2020.

¶24

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 A11 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain 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 hypothecated vehicles were already sold and interest claimed is on the higher side pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 12% simple.

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

(a) TA No. 81 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶33

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 47,67,898/- with future and pendente lite interest @12% (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant and his assets, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶34

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

¶35

(d) 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Punjab National Bank v. Thirupathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Thirupathy

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 & Sind Bank versus Mr. Tagore Sampath Jaikumar a

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam