Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. D Thirunavukkarasu

DRT7 Apr 2026OA/166/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a defaulting loan of approximately Rs.22.85 lakh. The court held the bank's claim proved despite the defendant's absence, citing the borrower availed credit facilities which became non-performing assets.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendant to pay a total sum of Rs.22,85,577.61p comprising principal and interest for MSME and GECL limits within one month, and ordering the preparation of a Recovery Certificate.

Punjab National Bank versus D Thirunavukkarasu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

OA No. 166/2023

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI DATED THIS 07^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA,

¶4

[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

OA No.166/2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Punjab National Bank, Circle SASTRA Trichy, Circle Office, Kailasapuram, Trichy – 620 014. Rep. By its Chief Manager.

¶8

---Applicant Bank

¶9

And

¶10

Mr. D. Thirunavukkarasu, S/o Duraipandi, 5/64, Perumal Kovil Street, Velarkulam, Vaduganpatti Post, Tirunelveli – 627 010. ---Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s S. Balasubramanian, T.M.Subramanian, M. Sundaraj

¶12

This Original Application was heard and fixed for passing final order before me in the presence of the above said Advocate for Applicant Bank and the Defendant having been set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments of Counsel for Applicant Bank and upon perusing the material available on the records and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

JUDGEMENT

¶14

1 . This Application has been filed under Sec.19 (1) of the "The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993" now amended

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

OA No. 166/2023

¶17

as The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by the Applicant Bank on 27.01.2023 to recover from the Defendant a total sum of Rs.22,85,577.61p i.e., (i) Rs.19,69,994.61p together with interest at the rate of 9.55% p.a. with monthly rests plus penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. in respect of MSME and (ii) Rs.3,15,583/- together with interest at the rate of 7.65% p.a. with monthly rests plus penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. in respect of GECL (TL) from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost of the application.

¶18

2 . The brief averments of the application filed by the Applicant Bank are as follows:-

¶19

The defendant has availed credit facilities for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/(MSME) and Rs.2,95,000/- (Working capital). The defendant executed necessary loaning documents in favour of the applicant. The following is the detail of cash credit loan availed by the defendant.

¶20

S.No.	^Nature of Loan	A/c. No.	Loan Amount	Rate of Interest	Outstanding Amount as on 30.11.2022
1	MSME Limit A/c	0484008700301184	^Rs. 15,00,000/-	9.55% p.a + 2% P.I	Rs. 19,69,994.61/-
2	GECL (TL) A/c	^{0484001100000164}	^Rs. 2,95,000/-	7.65% p.a + 2% P.I	Rs. 3,15,583.00/-

¶21

Further as per the accounts of the applicant maintained in the name of the defendants kept in regular course of business and as certified under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act as on 30.11.2022 for a sum of Rs. 22,51,093.61/(A/c.0484008700301184 Rs.19,38,081.61+ A/c.04800TL00000164 Rs.3,13,012.00) has became due and they are liable to pay the said amounts with further interest till repayment.

¶22

After availing the loan the defendant failed to pay the loan amount as agreed at the time availing loan and their loan account has became non performing asset. The defendant though have availed the entire sanctioned loan and he has not chosen to repay the loan amounts, as agreed, despite the repeated demands and reminders by the Applicant Bank. In spite of repeated the defendant failed to repay the loan amount. Hence the applicant has issued legal notice dated on 25.11.2021 to the defendant call upon to pay the outstanding amount.

¶23

Hence, the Applicant Bank has filed the OA for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,85,577.61p i.e., (i) Rs.19,69,994.61p together with interest at the

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

OA No. 166/2023

¶26

rate of 9.55% p.a. with monthly rests plus penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. in respect of MSME and (ii) Rs.3,15,583/- together with interest at the rate of 7.65% p.a. with monthly rests plus penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. in respect of GECL (TL) from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost.

¶27

The Applicant Bank has submitted the following documents in support its claim in the OA, which are as follows:

¶28

S. No.	Date	Description of document	Exhibits
1	14.05.2018	Sanction Letter for MSME	Ex.No.A-01
2	14.05.2018	Agreement for Loan/Cash Credit	Ex.No.A-02
3	08.07.2020	Application for Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line(GECL)	Ex.No.A-03
4	08.07.2020	Agreement for WCTL	Ex.No.A-04
5	08.07.2020	Master Agreement	Ex.No.A-05
6	06.05.2021	Balance and SecurityConfirmation Letter	Ex.No.A-06
7	—	Statement of Accounts	Ex.No.A-07

¶29

3 . On the other hand, Notices were issued to Defendant and since from the beginning of the case, there was no representation on behalf of the Defendant. Hence, Defendant was set ex-parte.

¶30

4. Now the main point for consideration before me is as to whether the Applicant has been able to prove his case on his own leg?

¶31

Having gone through the affidavit of the applicant and the documents filed by them and also considering the submission of the counsel for the Applicant, I find that the Applicant Bank, in order to prove its claim, has filed Proof Affidavit executed by one Mr. Manjunath Venkatagiri, who is the Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶32

He has stated in his affidavit that the defendant has availed MSME and GECL (TL) from the Applicant Bank, but he failed to pay the outstanding loan amount, hence he has filed the case. The applicant bank has also filed the documents given by the defendant at the time of sanctioning the loan amount, which have been marked as exhibits No.A-01 to A-07 in support of its claim in the OA.

¶33

The Sanction Letter for MSME has been marked as Ex.No.A-01, Agreement for Loan/Cash Credit has been marked as Ex.No.A-02, Application for Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) has been marked as Ex.No.A-03, Agreement for WCTL has been marked as Ex.No.A-04,

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

OA No. 166/2023

¶36

Master Agreement has been marked as Ex.No.A-05, Balance and Security Confirmation Letter has been marked as Ex.No.A-06, and Statement of Accounts has been marked as Ex.No.A-07. So the averments of the applicant as well as the statement of the pleading have been corroborated by the above mentioned documents.

¶37

As the Defendant remained ex-parte, the claim of the Applicant Bank is neither disproved nor dislodged and goes on record as proved. Accordingly a cumulative analysis of both the Proof Affidavit and documents marked by the Applicant Bank would prove the claim of the Applicant Bank in the OA.

¶38

So far the claim of interest is concerned, it is a well settled Law that the Tribunal has got powers to award pendente lite interest in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.M. Veerapa Vs Canara Bank (reported in AIR 98(1), 1101 & in Central bank of India Vs Ravindra and OS (AIR, 2001(1), 3095).

¶39

So far the penal interest is concerned Hon'ble supreme court stated in the said judgement as followed " Though interest can be capitalised on the anology that the interest falling due on the accrued date and remaining unpaid, partakes the character of amount advanced on that date, yet penal interest, which is charged by way of penalty for non payment, cannot be capitalized. Further interest, i.e interest on interest, whether simple, compound or penal, cannot be claimed on the amount of penal interest. Penal interest cannot be capitalized. It will be opposed to public policy ".

¶40

Therefore, this Original Application is allowed . The Applicant

¶41

Bank is entitled for a final order on the following lines:-

¶42

The Applicant Bank is entitled to recover from the Defendant, a total sum of Rs.22,85,577.61p i.e., (i) Rs.19,69,994.61p together with interest at the rate of 9.55% p.a. with half yearly rests in respect of MSME and (ii) Rs.3,15,583/- together with interest at the rate of 7.65% p.a. with half yearly rests in respect of GECL (TL) from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost. Accordingly, it is hereby

Page 4 of 5

OA No. 166/2023

ORDERED

(a) That the Defendant is directed to pay personally a total sum of Rs.22,85,577.61p i.e., (i) Rs.19,69,994.61p together with interest at the rate of 9.55% p.a. with half yearly rests in respect of MSME and (ii) Rs.3,15,583/- together with interest at the rate of 7.65% p.a. with half yearly rests in respect of GECL (TL) from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶47

(b) Recovery Certificate be prepared, as per the directions given above, and issue accordingly. A copy of the order is to be communicated to the parties concerned, immediately.

¶48

(c) It is further ordered that the Applicant Bank shall file cost memo within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, so as to prepare the recovery certificate with cost for the MSME, GECL (TL) and the Recovery Officer is also directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In case, cost memo is not filed before said period of one month, Recovery Certificate will be prepared with available records.

¶49

Dictated to T.P, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 07^th April, 2026.

¶50

Sd/- (SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

Uploaded on 18.04.26

¶52

Page 5 of 5

Punjab National Bank v. D Thirunavukkarasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. D Thirunavukkarasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus J and J Plastics

Canara Bank versus Pappa

Mohammed Iqbal versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus J Vinoth Kumar Peinba Raj

Canara Bank versus B Rajan

Uco Bank versus Kavitha