Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

State Bank of India vs R. Muthuramalingam on 28 March 2024

Cites 0, Cited by 0

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

Dated this 28th day of March, 2024

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

PRESIDING OFFICER

TA No.903 of 2023

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.444 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.903 of 2023)

State Bank of India

Chidambaram Branch,

No.3, South Car Street, Chidambaram

Cuddalore District – 608 001

Rep. by Manager

…Applicant

Versus

R. Muthuramalingam

S/o Rajavel

B. Athanoor Village

Agara Alambadi Post

Chidambaram Taluk

Cuddalore District – 608 001

…Defendant

Counsel for the Applicant Bank

Counsel for Defendant

:

:

Mr. D. Mukundan

Ex- parte

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

FINAL ORDER

1. The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 34,06,987.47p due in the credit facilities of agricultural term loan, pipe line loan and KCC crop loan availed by the defendant.

2. The above OA was originally filed before DRT-I and got transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

3. The applicant contends that the credit facilities of Rs.4,51,000/-, Rs.1,03,000/- and Rs.5,54,000/- were availed as per term loan, Pipe Line loan and Kisan

Credit card. It is also stated that the credit facilities were availed by the defendants by due execution of loan documents. The facility is secured by mortgage of schedule properties and also by hypothecation.

4. The Applicant further contents that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendant 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.

5. The summons issued to the defendant were returned as “refused” and held to be sufficient service. Since the defendants failed to appear he was set ex- parte on 3.6.2022.

6. The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Exhibits A1 to A40.

7. Heard, the following issues arise for consideration: - (a) Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim?

(b) What orders are to be passed? Both these issues are decided together.

8. The Applicant evidence remained 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 to be found entitled for the OA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit facility is for agricultural purpose and TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 9% simple.

9. In view of the above, the following order is passed: - (a) TA No.903 of 2023 stands allowed.

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 34,06,987.47p (Rupees Thirty four lakhs six thousand nine hundred seven and paise forty seven only) with future and pendente lite interest @ 9% simple per annum from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA/TA; from the defendant, personally and also by proceeding against the selling his assets including the scheduled mortgaged properties and hypothecated assets.

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

(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.

10. 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. (Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28th day of March, 2024)

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

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead