Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs Alagu P on 31 December 2019
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI
Dated this 31st Day of December, 2019
Present: Dr.N.V. BADARINATH
PRESIDING OFFICER
TA 272/2019
(OA 182/2016 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)
Canara Bank,
Thirumayam Branch,
Thirumayam – 622 507,
Pudukkottai District. … Applicant
Vs.
Mr. P.Alagu, S/o Mr.Pachamuthu,
1/390, Nainapatti Village,
Aathanur Post,
.. Defendant
Pudukkottai District.
Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s. M.L.Ganesh & S.Arun Kumar Defendant remained ex-parte.
ORDER
1. This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,85,076/- due under MSME-Services Term Loan facility with interest @ 10.20% p.a., together with penal interest @ 2% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full for sale of the schedule mentioned property along with costs of this application.
Page 1 of 3
2. Defendant remained ex-parte.
3. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal. The point that arises for consideration is Whether the applicant bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the application from the defendant? If so, at what rate of interest?
4. Point
Whether the applicant bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the application from the defendant? If so, at what rate of interest?
4.1 To prove its claim, the applicant bank filed proof affidavit through its Branch Manager along with 5 documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A5. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with Exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the TA claim against the defendant. Point is answered accordingly.
5. For the reasons stated as above, it is held that the applicant bank is entitled for a Recovery Certificate against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,85,076/- due under MSME-Services Term Loan facility together with pendent lite and future interest at 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, for sale of the schedule mentioned property along with costs of this application.
……… 3/-
Page 2 of 3
6. In the result, application is allowed as under:
(a) The applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 11,85,076/- due under MSME- Services Term Loan facility with pendent lite and future interest at 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendant; (b) It is further ordered that in case of default of payment by the defendant, the applicant bank is entitled to sell the schedule mentioned property and adjust the sale proceeds towards the amount due.
(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due.
(d) It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized, if any, during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendant.
(e) The applicant bank is entitled for costs of this application.
7. The applicant bank is directed to file costs memo within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
8. Issue recovery certificate in favour of the applicant bank in terms of this final order.
9. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Rule 16 read with Rule 2(c) of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 31st day of December, 2019)
Sd/- (Dr.N.V. BADARINATH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…