Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
HDFC BANK vs Mr R Vijaya Sankar on 8 July 2019
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I ATCHENNAI
Dated this 4th Day of July, 2019
Present: SHRI N.V.BADARINATH
PRESIDING OFFICER
OA 338/2018
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
“ Ceebros”,
No. 110 , 4th Floor,Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029.
.… Applicant.
Vs.
1. Mr.R.Vijayasankar,
No.34, 4th Cross, Cauvery Nagar,
Thirumanilaiyur Post,
Karur – 639 003
And also at
No.492/3, Moolakattanur,
S.Vellalapatti,Senapiratti Via,
Near VKA HP Petrol Bunk,
Karur – 639 004
2. Mrs. V.Narmatha,
No.34, 4th Cross, Cauvery Nagar,
Thirumanilaiyur Post,
Karur – 639 003
And also at
No.492/3, Moolakattanur,
S.Vellalapatti,Senapiratti Via,
Near VKA HP Petrol Bunk,
Karur – 639 004
…..
Defendants.
Counsel for the Applicant Bank :
Mr.T.K.M.Sai Krishnan
Defendants remained 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.
ORDER
1. This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendants jointly and severally for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,28,906.42p due under Business loan together with further interest @ 14.99% p.a., from 29.06.2018 till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.
2. Defendants 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 defendants? If so, at what rate of interest?
4. Point Whether the applicant bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the application from the defendants? If so, at what rate of interest? 4.1 To prove its claim, the applicant bank filed proof affidavit through its Authorized Signatory along with 12 documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A12. 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 TAclaim against the defendants. 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 defendants jointly and severally for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,28,906.42p due under Business loan 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, along with costs of this application.
6. In the result, application is allowed as under:
(a) The applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,28,906.42p due under Business loan 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, from the defendants jointly and severally.
(b) It is further ordered that in case of default of payment by the defendants, the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due.
(c) 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 defendants.
(d) 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 4th day of July, 2019) Sd/- (N.V.BADARINATH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI