Allowed

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) v. Mr. N. Srinivasan

DRT18 Dec 2025TA/335/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate. It held the loan and documents proved, permitting realization of principal and 7% simple interest. Liability covers lenders and heirs within estate limits.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.17,81,035/- plus 7% simple interest from date of application, payable by defendants jointly and severally or via asset sale.

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) versus Mr. N. Srinivasan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 18^th day of December, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.335 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-III Chennai as OA No.315 of 2018 and transferred to DRT-I Chennai and renumbered as TA No.362 of 2018 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.335 of 2022)

¶6

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) Vaniyambadi Branch Represented by its Chief Manager Regional Office, Chennai II M S Centre, 459/1, First Floor Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai – 600 018 …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. N. Srinivasan

¶9

S/o Late Narayanasamy Naidu Ramapuram Village

¶10

Kumaramangalam Madura Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District

¶11

Mr. Senthilkumar S/o Vadivel Karapattu Village, Thuthipattu Post Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District

¶12

Mr. Mahindran K G S/o Mr. Govindasamy Govindapuram Village, Venkatasandiam Post Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District

¶13

Mrs. M. Navaneetham W/o Mr. R. Mahoharan Karapattu Village, Arangaldurugam Madura Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District

¶14

¶15

Mr. M. Dinesh S/o Mr. R. Manoharan Karapattu Village, Arangaldurugam Madura Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District ... Defendants

¶16

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶17

Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s K.V. Subramanian Associatez Defendants 1, 3 and 4 ex-parte on 26.02.2019 2^nd defendant deceased Defendants 5 and 6 ex-parte on 21.11.2025

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,81,035/- together with interest at the rate of 13.85% per annum with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶20

The subject matter of the case is the Term Loan – Agriculture advance availed by the defendants from the Applicant Bank.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that the 1^st defendant during his life time and the 2^nd defendant are agriculturists; the defendants 3 and 4 are the guarantors; defendants 5 and 6 are the legal heirs of the deceased 2^nd defendant.

¶22

¶23

It is also the case of the defendants that the defendants 1 and 2 approached the applicant bank for grant of credit facilities vide application dated 26.02.2007 for purchase of Tractor / Trailer / other agricultural implements and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a Term Loan / Tractor loan of Rs.5,50,000/- vide its sanction on 26.02.2007. It is stated that the defendants 1 and 2 executed the loan documents on 6.3.2007 and the 3^rd defendant executed guarantee agreement on 6.3.2007.

¶24

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendants 1 during his life time and the 2^nd defendant deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned property on 25.02.2007 with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds on 6.3.2007.

¶25

It is stated that the loan for purchase of tractor sanctioned to the defendants fall under the priority sector lending and there is a fixed target for the bank to lend to the agriculturists, taking into account the fact that India is predominantly an agricultural country. It is also stated that the success of agriculture depends on the good monsoon and water resources and the State of Tamil Nadu faced drought, lack of monsoon rains, or some years, unprecedented floods. Considering these facts and that the loan sanction are agricultural loan, the applicant bank gave a long time to

¶26

¶27

the defendants to adjust the dues. In fact, many times, the officials of the applicant bank called upon the defendants personally and requested them to take efforts to adjust the outstanding dues. There were several personal follow up, meetings held with these defendants by various officials of the bank, only with a bonafide intention to adjust the dues despite the applicant bank’s offer to settle the dues.

¶28

It is also the case of the applicant that despite the genuine attempts made by the applicant bank the defendants did not come forward to pay the dues and regularize the loan account and hence a legal notice was issued to the defendants on 31.07.2017 requesting them to clear the outstanding dues. As the defendants did not come forward to regularize the loan account, the account was classified as NPA on 31.3.2011. Hence the applicant is filing this OA for recovery of its dues.

¶29

Summons was taken out to the defendants. Summons to 2^nd defendant returned unserved with endorsement “deceased” and defendants 1, 3, 4 are served with notice. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendants continuously and on 26.2.2019, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 were called absent and placed ex-parte on that day. Applicant bank filed IA No.584/2019 for impleading the legal heirs of deceased 2^nd defendant and the same was allowed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 29.05.2019. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 13 documents, which were

¶30

¶31

marked as Ex. A-1 to A-13 on 05.04.2024. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 30.10.2025 and the case was posted for orders on 21.11.2025. However, while dictating the order it was noticed that the defendants 5 and 6 have not been set ex-parte and hence the case was reopened. Defendants 5 and 6 were called in open court on 21.11.2025, the remained absent and hence were set ex-parte on that day, thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶33

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendants?

¶34

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶35

These issues are considered together.

¶36

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶37

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-13 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the

¶38

¶39

applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendants. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶40

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶41

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendant is an agricultural and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates and prayer for award of penal interest is rejected.

¶42

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, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶43

(a) TA No.335 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶44

¶45

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.17,81,035/- together with interest at the date of 7% (Simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendants 1, 3, 4 to 6 jointly and severally after deducting all the amounts received / realized by them during the pendency of OA and also by selling the schedule mentioned properties and other assets of the defendants. It is made clear that the liability of the defendants 5 and 6 are restricted to the extent of estate derived from deceased 2^nd defendant.

¶46

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 are personally liable for all such amounts due as ordered above.

¶47

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶51

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶52

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 18^th day of December, 2025)

¶53

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶54

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.	26.02.2007	Application submitted by defendants 1 and 2 for grant of Term Loan of Rs.5,50,000/-	A-1
2.	26.02.2007	Sanction letter of the applicant bank.	A-2
3.	06.03.2007	Agreement for agricultural advances executed by defendants 1 and 3	A-3
4.	06.03.2007	Deed of guarantee executed by 3^rddefendant	A-4
5.	25.02.2007	Letter of handing over of title deeds by 1^st defendant.	A-5
6.	29.06.2007	Simple mortgage by deposit of title deeds executed by defendants 1 and 2 – Doc. No.1158 of 2007.	A-6
7.	11.09.1971	Will executed in favour of Sengammal and Srinivasulu Naidu by Chengaiya Naidu – Doc. No. 30/1971	A-7
8.	31.07.1992	Power of Attorney issued in favour of N. Srinivasan by Ms. Rajammal	A-8

¶55

¶56

9.	17.07.2011	Partition deed executed among R. Manoharan and 8 others	A-9
10.	27.10.2006	Patta issued by the Revenue Department, Vellore District in favour of 1^stdefendant	A-10
11.	16.02.2007	Patta issued by the Revenue department, Vellore district in favour of 2^nddefendant.	A-11
12.	31.07.2017	Legal notice sent to the defendants	A-12
13.		Statement of accounts with Memorandum of Interest and certificates under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act.	A-13

¶57

Sd/- (SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶58

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶59

All that piece and parcel of vacant Nanjai land together with all buildings and structures and additions / improvements thereon comprised in Survey Nos.146/8, 143/7, 144/6, 143/6, 146/7 totally measuring Acres 3.30 Cents situated in No.41, Kadavalam Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District and Survey No.487/1B2 measuring Acres 1.40 cents situated in Karapattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District put together total of Acres 4.70 Cents as detailed below bounded on

¶60

¶61

Survey Nos. KANDAVALAM VILLAGE, VANIYAM	Boundaries BADI TALUK, VELLORE DISTRICT
143/6 - Nanjai - Hect 0.17.0 Ares – Acres 0.42 cents only	North of : Rathinam Land South of : S.No. 143/6 and 143/7 lands East of : Govindasamy Lands West of : Odai Poromboke Land
146/7 - Nanjai - Hect 0.43.0 Ares – Acres 1.06 cents only	North of : Rathinam Land South of : S.No. 143/6 and 143/7 lands East of : Govidasamy Lands West of : Odai Poromboke Land
146/8 - Nanjai - Hect 0.26.0 Ares – Acres 0.64 cents only	North of : Rathinam Land South of : S.No. 143/6 and 143/7 lands East of : Govidasamy Lands West of:Odai Poromboke Land
143/7 - Nanjai - Hect 0.23.5 Ares – Acres 0.58 cents only	North of : Rathinam Land South of : S.No. 143/6 and 143/7 lands East of : Govindasamy Lands West of : Odai Poromboke Land
146/7 - Nanjai - Hect 0.35.0 Ares – Acres 0.60 cents only	North of : Rathinam Land South of : S.No. 143/6 and 143/7 lands East of : Govidasamy Lands West of : Odai Poromboke Land
Sub total	Acres 3.30 cents

¶62

¶63

KARAPATTU VILLAGE, VANIYAMBADI TALUK, VELLORE DISTRICT

¶64

487/1B2 – Punjai – Hect.0.57.0 Ares - As per partition deed dated 17.07.2001, Acres 1.31 cents only ( as per resurvey Schedule – D allotted to the 2^nd No 487/5) defendant

¶65

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶66

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) v. Mr. N. Srinivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) v. Mr. N. Srinivasan

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

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s M.G.A. Mining Company

Dbs Bank India Ltd., versus M/s Star Roofing Sheets

State Bank of India, Sarb versus K. Ramesh Kumar

Poovai Amman Avency and Others versus City Union Bank Limited

Venus Exports versus Bank of Baroda

M Lakshmi Priya versus Bank of Baroda