Allowed

Bank of India v. Veeralakshmi

DRT9 Feb 2024TA/87/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's transfer application for issuing a recovery certificate under the RDB Act. The claim for agricultural term loans was proved by un-rebutted evidence. The account was adjudged, future interest awarded at 9% p.a., and a recovery certificate ordered along with directions to proceed against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed to recover Rs. 47,87,844/- with interest @9% p.a.; Recovery Certificate to be drawn; directions to proceed against schedule properties and other assets.

Bank of India versus Veeralakshmi — Insurance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 9^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.87 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.372/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Bank of India, Papanad Branch, 2/92, Agraharam, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District 614 626. Represented by its Constituted Attorney. IFSC – BKID008142.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs.M.Veeralakshmi, W/o.Mr.S.Muruganandam, 22/5, North Street, Sethurayankudikadu, Orathanadu Tk.,

¶9

Thanjavur District – 614 902.

¶10

Mr.S.Muruganandam, S/o.Mr.Sethuraman, 22/5, North Street, Sethurayankudikadu, Orathanadu Tk., Thanjavur District – 614 902.

¶11

Mr.A.Prabakaran, S/o.Mr.A.Arumugam, Door No.1/25A. Keelatheru, Sethurayankudikadu, Orathanadu Tk., Thanjavur District – 614 902.

¶12

… Defendants.

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.Neelakantan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The above Transfer 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.47,87,844/- due in the agricultural Term loans availed by the defendants.

¶17

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively were availed by 1^st and 2^nd defendants for which 3^rd defendant stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties and hypothecation.

¶18

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.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 12.5.2022.

¶20

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A23.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶22

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶23

¶24

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

The Applicant’s evidences remain 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 facilities are for agricultural purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @9% p.a. (simple).

¶27

In view of the above

¶28

i) TA No.87 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 47,87,844/(Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousands Eight Hundred and Forty Four only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by proceeding against hypothecation.

¶30

¶31

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶32

iv) 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

v) 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

¶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 9^th day of February, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

Bank of India v. Veeralakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Veeralakshmi

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

Bank of Baroda versus Mr.B.Gunasekaran

State Bank of India versus Vijay

Canara Bank versus N.Kulandaivel

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) versus Mr. S. Annamalai (Borrower)

City Union Bank Ltd. versus Mr. K. Anand

Indian Overseas Bank, versus Mrs. Sudha