Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Jaishankar

DRT5 Mar 2024TA/817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application for a recovery certificate. The applicant proved the allegation of short term agricultural loan default against the individual borrower and corporate guarantor. The court awarded the principal amount along with future and pendant interest at 8% p.a. and ordered issuance of the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.21,36,204/- with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a. to be recovered jointly and severally from defendants.

Union Bank of India versus Jaishankar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 5^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.817 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.281/2019 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Union Bank of India, Previously Corporation Bank, Kumbakonam Branch, 85-A, Sarangapani East Street, Kumbakonam, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District. Represented by its Chief Manager.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M.Jaishankar, S/o.Murugesan, 97, Middle Street, Thevanur Post, Thiruvannamalai District. Pin : 606 806.

¶10

Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Registered Office At No.112, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Sugar Mill at Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited, Thirumandankudi – 612 301. Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District. Represented by its Senior Manager. … Defendants.

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.R.Santhanam. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.21,36,204/- due in Short Term Agricultural Loan availed by the defendants from erstwhile Corporation Bank, which later got amalgamated with the applicant.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant as a borrower and 2^nd defendant as corporate guarantor availed Short Term Loan of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is also stated that the said facility was secured by hypothecation of movables.

¶16

It is further stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves 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 defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶18

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear, they were set exparte on 25.07.2019.

¶19

¶20

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in

¶21

confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A22.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶23

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶24

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

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 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 and the facility is for agricultural purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @8% p.a. (simple).

¶27

In view of the above

¶28

i) TA No.817/2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.21,36,204/(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Thirty Six Thousands Two Hundred and Four only) with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severally and also from their assets

¶30

¶31

including the sale of schedule mentioned hypothecated movables after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA. It is made clear that the 1^st defendant is also personally liable for the due amount.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶35

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 5^th day of March, 2024)

¶36

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

¶37

Union Bank of India v. Jaishankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Jaishankar

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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. K. Saravanakumar

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Mars Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Murugan Thailan Murugesan

Indian Bank versus R Natarajan

Indian Bank versus Mrs S Radha

Bank of Baroda versus Mr.N.Ramanathan