Allowed

Canara Bank v. Gowthami

DRT25 Mar 2024TA/845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a sanctioned loan of Rs.38,08,813.67p against the defendant. The court adjusted the interest rate from 8.6% simple per annum with monthly rests to 8% simple interest from the date of filing till realization and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to realize Rs.38,08,813.67p with interest at 8% p.a. simple and recover costs; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Canara Bank versus Gowthami — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 25^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.845 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.255 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.845 of 2023)

¶7

M/s Canara Bank Arumbakkam Branch 41/49, Main Road, Janakiraman Colony Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106 Rep. by its Branch Manager …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mrs. Gowthami D/o Boominathan Proprietor of M/s Jaisha Tech Business Solutions No.18, Venkat MGR School Road Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099 …Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. V. Kauanandakumar Defendant : Ex- parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,08,813.67p together with interest at the rate of 8.6% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

¶13

The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶14

¶15

The case of the applicant is as follows: -

¶16

The defendant engaged in the business of software solutions approached the erstwhile Syndicate Bank for grant of credit facility for improvement of business vide application dated 13.7.2016 and the defendant considering the said request sanctioned a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- to the defendant vide its sanction dated 3.8.2016 and the defendant executed necessary loan documents on 3.8.2016. The defendant executed hypothecation agreement on 3.8.2016 thereby hypothecating the movables in the defendant’s premises.

¶17

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, he failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2017.

¶18

It is contended by the applicant that the applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized or to pay back the amount.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and costs.

¶20

The defendant remained absent and hence was called absent and set ex-parte on 2.8.2023.

¶21

¶22

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-7 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶25

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

¶26

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained ex-parte. 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 defendant and her assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶29

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a business and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the OA and further as

¶30

¶31

the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶32

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶33

(a) TA No.72 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶34

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.38,08,813.67p with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a., simple from the defendant, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received or recovered by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the hypotheca and other assets of the defendant.

¶35

¶36

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.

¶37

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 25^th day of March, 2024)

¶42

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

¶43

Canara Bank v. Gowthami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Gowthami

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 versus Kathiresan Kailasappan

Canara Bank versus Mr J Arul

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Simma Associates

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh