Canara Bank vs Mr. V. Senthil Kumar on 28 March 2024

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. 28,03,249/- due in the Agricultural loan availed by the defendants from the earst while Syndicate Bank, which got amalgamated with applicant bank.

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

3. The applicant contends that the credit facility of Rs.7,10,000/- was availed by the 1st defendant as the borrower and the 2nd defendant as the stood as a guarantor. The facility was availed for the purchase of tractor, agricultural implements and trailer. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of the schedule properties.

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 defendants entered appearance and filed their reply statement denying the TA averments. It is contended that only due to draught, the defaults occurred. The defendants are also disputing the OA claim and contend that the applicant had charged exorbitant interest.

6. The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Ext A1 to A10. No defense evidence was let in by the defendants, though sufficient opportunity was given.

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

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

8. The Applicant’s evidence remained un-rebutted. Though a reply statement was filed no specific denial was put forth other than a general denial of facts. No defense evidence was adduced in rebuttal of the TA claim. 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 TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the contractual rate, which is on the higher side, and also taking note of the fact that the credit facility is for agricultural purpose, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8% simple.

9. In view of the above, the following order is passed: - (a) TA No. 403 of 2022 stands allowed.

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 28,03,249/- with future and pendente lite interest @ 8% 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 defendants jointly, severally, personally and also by proceeding against their assets including the scheduled properties.

(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 proceeding 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