Allowed

State Bank of India v. v.Jayamoorthy

DRT14 Feb 2024TA/848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's petition for recovery of dues. The court found the claim well-established and uncontroverted, permitting recovery from the defendant personally and through sale of mortgaged and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,59,809.04p plus interest; sale of scheduled property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus v.Jayamoorthy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.848 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.419 of 2018 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.848 of 2023)

¶7

State Bank of India Karikkalambakkam Branch c-45, Madukkari Main Road Karikkalambakkam Puducherry – 605 103 Rep. by its Chief Manager …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

V. Jayamoorthy S/o Varadarasu 27, Mariyamman Kovil Street Mettuchavadi Chellanchery – 605 106 …Defendant Counsel for the Applicant : M/s K. Chandrasekaran Defendant : Ex-parte

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

The above Original Application is filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.22,59,809.04p with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendant personally and also by sale of schedule property and hypotheca.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

The Applicant contends that the defendant had availed following credit facilities from the applicant viz., Term loan for Rs.3,83,000/-, Crop loan for Rs.1,32,000/- and Term loan two for Rs.7,82,000/-.

¶15

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.

¶16

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendant created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule B property. Over and above the mortgage, hypothecation over rice transplanter, tipper and harvester were created as additional security.

¶17

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. It is also stated that acknowledgment of debt were issued on 19.9.2015 and 12.2.2015.

¶18

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 8.9.2017 issue a demand notice.

¶19

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 OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶20

¶21

The defendant filed their reply statement denying the averments and contended that the debt sought to be recovered is agricultural one and only as the income realized from agricultural was not sufficient the default occurred. It is also stated that the defendant was affected by cyclone. It is further contended that the OA claim is exorbitant.

¶22

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 A21 and got the same marked in evidence. Despite granting sufficient opportunity no defense evidence was adduced.

¶23

Heard the counsel for the applicant and as the defendant did not appear continuously, the defendant could not be heard. 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: -

¶24

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

¶25

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶27

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant despite filing a reply statement putting forth the general defence did not dispute the case of the applicant. Apart from a general denial no specific contention is taken by the defendant. 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 TA is

¶28

¶29

outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and 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 facility is admittedly for agricultural facility pendentalite and future interest is awarded at 8% simple.

¶30

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

¶31

(a) TA No.848 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶32

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 22,59,809.04p with being the total due amount with future and pendente lite interest @12% (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by proceedings against hypotheca.

¶33

(c) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendant and his assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶34

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

¶35

(e) 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

¶37

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

¶38

19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶39

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this 14^th day of February, 2024)

¶40

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

¶41

State Bank of India v. v.Jayamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. v.Jayamoorthy

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

Uco Bank versus M/s.Ahb Isfa Traders

Canara Bank versus Mr.T.Subramani (Deceased)

Indian Overseas Bank versus Rama Thamilarasan

Bank of Baroda versus P Gunasekaran

Punjab National Bank versus Thirupathy

Punjab & Sind Bank versus Mr. Tagore Sampath Jaikumar a