Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. R. Renganayagi

DRT8 Feb 2024TA/89/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by State Bank of India against a borrower and guarantor for recovery of an agricultural loan default. The court awarded the principal amount with interest and directed the sale of mortgaged and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 17,26,458/- with 9% simple interest; sale of scheduled property and hypothecated tractor; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. R. Renganayagi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.89 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.432 of 2020 and thereafter Transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.89 of 2022)

¶6

State Bank of India Thanjavur Branch Represented by its Chief Manager R.M. Hospital Road Thanjavur – 613 001 …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. R. Renganayagi W/o Mr. Rasu Kandiyar Sandhapettai Street Periyarpuram, Budalore P.O Thanjavur Distrct – 613 602

¶9

Mr. R. Thangamani S/o Mr. Rasu Kandiyar Sandhapettai Street Periyarpuram, Budalore P.O Thanjavur Distrct – 613 602 …Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s Mrs. N.S. Revathi Defendants : 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.17,26,458/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendants jointly and severally and also by ordering sale of the schedule property.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

The case of the applicant is as follows:-

¶16

The 1^st defendant being the borrower and 2^nd defendant being the guarantor had availed an agricultural term loan of Rs.4,75,000/- for the purpose of purchase of Mahindra Tractor. It is also stated that in lieu of the credit facility the defendant apart from execution of necessary loan documents including for the purpose of creation of hypothecation over the tractor and accessories had also created equitable mortgage over the immovable properties owned by the defendants more fully described in the schedule to the TA.

¶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 16 half yearly installments of Rs.29,700/- each.

¶18

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting in defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 30.9.2013.

¶19

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.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the

¶21

¶22

applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶23

Even as the defendants were duly served, they failed to appear resulting they were set exparte on 3.1.2023.

¶24

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contention as taken in the OA 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 remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence 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

¶30

¶31

Capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit facility is purely agricultural one, pendent lite and future interest is awarded at 9% simple per annum.

¶32

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

¶33

(a) TA No.89 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶34

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 17,26,458/- being the total due amount with future and pendente lite interest @9% PA(simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severally and also by proceedings against and selling the scheduled property and hypothecated tractor and also personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶35

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

¶36

(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.

¶37

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.

¶38

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this 8^th day of February, 2024)

¶39

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

¶40

State Bank of India v. Mrs. R. Renganayagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. R. Renganayagi

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Radhakrishnan

Indian Overseas Bank versus Suns Food Company

Indian Bank versus M/s.Thirumalai Stores

Bank of Baroda versus S.Anjalatchi

Union Bank of India versus Mr. N. Balu

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus Mr. Senapathi Sivashanmuga Devar