Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs MR. Bhagawath Singh on 29 December 2023
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 29th day of December, 2023
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No.689 of 2022
(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.260 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.689 of 2022)
M/s Canara Bank
Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank
Egmore Branch
Rep. by its Chief Manager, R. Indumathi
No.16, Police Commissioner Office Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
…Applicant
Versus
Mr. Bhagawath Singh
S/o N. Nalla Sethupathi
No.19/1, Thiru Nagar, 19th Street
Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049
…Defendant
Counsel for the Applicant Bank
Defendant
:
:
M/s V. Suthakar
Ex- parte
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
FINAL ORDER
1. This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,63,349.22p with further interest at the rate of 9.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for schedule of property.
2. The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.
3. The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows: - The defendant, engaged in the business of transport service and allied activities, approached the then Syndicate Bank in 2015 for grant of credit facilities and the erstwhile Syndicate Bank sanctioned Synd Vehicle Loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on 10.09.2015 for purchase of Honda City 1.5, Regn. No.TN-02/ BL-0009 and the defendant executed necessary loan documents on 10.09.2015. The said loan was repayable in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.15,339/- commencing from 31.10.2015 till 30.09.2022. It is stated that the account was restructured due to flood in the year 2915 on 14.03.2016 and the defendant executed necessary documents on 2016.
4. It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 30.12.2016.
5. It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and costs.
6. The defendant remained absent and hence was set ex-parte on 22.06.2013.
7. The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-6 and got the same marked in evidence.
8. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.
9. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -
(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendant?
(ii) What orders are to be passed?
Both these issues are gone into and decided together.
10. The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained ex-parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and his assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.
11. In view of the fact that the subject loan is a loan facility availed by the defendant for purchasing a vehicle and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the OA and further as the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.
12. 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, TA is disposed off in the following manner: - (a) TA No.689 of 2022 stands allowed.
(b) Applicant is permitted to realize a sum of Rs.12,63,349.92p with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a., simple from the defendant, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the hypotheca and other assets of the defendant.
(c) It is made clear that the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due under the Loan Accounts.
(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.
(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.
13. 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. (Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 29th day of December, 2023) Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI