Allowed

M/s.Indian Bank v. Ms.G.Pavithra

DRT6 Mar 2024TA/929/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank filed an application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for an educational loan of approximately Rs.14.44 lakhs. The debt recovery tribunal found the evidence un-rebutted and the claim valid, allowing recovery with future and pendentelite interest at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.14,44,525.16 plus future and pendentelite interest at 8% p.a. (simple).

M/s.Indian Bank versus Ms.G.Pavithra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 6^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.929 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.319/2018 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

M/s.Indian Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, Uthamar Gandhi Salai Branch, 19, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Ms.G.Pavithra, D/o.Mr.G.Gnanamoorthy, 16/13, Thiru-vi-Ka Colony, Bajanai Koil 4^th Street, Choolaimedu,

¶9

Chennai – 600 094.

¶10

Then at

¶11

No.40, Manali Main Road, Chinna Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118.

¶12

And Now residing at No.99, 5^th Street, Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118.

¶13

Mr.G.Gnanamoorthy, 16/13, Thiru-vi-Ka Colony, Bajanai Koil 4^th Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.

¶14

¶15

Then at No.40, Manali Main Road, Chinna Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118. And Now residing at No.99, 5^th Street, Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118.

¶16

Mrs.G.Malarkodi, W/o.G.Gnanamoorthy, 16/13, Thiru-vi-Ka Colony, Bajanai Koil 4^th Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.

¶17

Then at No.40, Manali Main Road, Chinna Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118. And Now residing at No.99, 5^th Street, Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.R.K.Associates. Defendants : Exparte. ….. ORDER

¶18

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶19

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.14,44,525.16 due in the Educational Loan availed

¶20

by the defendants.

¶21

¶22

2. The Applicant contends that Educational Loan of Rs.6,40,000/- was availed by 1^st defendant who is minor then for pursuing her BDS course, represented by her father and guardian, 2^nd defendant for which 3^rd defendant who is wife of 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor. On 17.09.2009, the 1^st defendant after attaining majority, had executed a letter of undertaking to be obtained from erstwhile minor on attaining majority and from the parent as co-borrower(s)/ guarantor(s) for Educational Loans.

¶23

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.

¶24

Summons was taken out and even though defendants entered appearance through counsel they did not file reply statement and hence chance for filing reply statement was closed. Subsequently, as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 14.12.2023.

¶25

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A21.

¶26

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶27

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶28

¶29

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are decided together.

¶31

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 TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side and also the loan is availed for education purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @8% p.a. (simple).

¶32

In view of the above:

¶33

i) TA No.929 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶34

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.14,44,525.16 (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Four Thousands Five Hundred Twenty Five and Paise Sixteen Only) with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶35

¶36

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms.

¶37

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 6^th day of March, 2024)

¶41

Sd./-

¶42

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

¶43

M/s.Indian Bank v. Ms.G.Pavithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Indian Bank v. Ms.G.Pavithra

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 Bank versus R Natarajan

Indian Bank versus Mrs S Radha

Union Bank of India versus Jaishankar

Karur Vysya Bank versus Mrs. Kavitha S

Canara Bank versus Nila Paper Mill rep by Managing Partner

Union Bank of India versus K.Ramesh