Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs Sri NAGANNA (Borrower) on 7 September 2019
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU**
Dated this the 7<sup>th</sup> day of September, 2019
**Present: Shri K Ravindran Nair
Hon`ble Presiding Officer
Incharge-DRT-II**
**T.A.No.447/2017**
**(O.A.No.69/2017-DRT-I)**
**BETWEEN:**
**Canara Bank**
Kanakapura Branch
Ramanagaram District
**Represented by its Manager**
**Mr.Vimal V**
** ...APPLICANT**
**AND:**
1. **1) Sri Naganna (Borrower)**
2. **2) Sri Swamy (Borrower)**
3. **3) Smt.Bhagyamma**
4. **4) Smt.Shanthamma**
5. **5) Smt.Putamma**
6. **6) Smt.Jayamma**
**Defendants 1 & 2 are sons and**
**Defendants 3 to 6 are daughters of**
**Late Muniyappa and LR.s.of Late Sanjeevamma**
**they are all r/at:**
Mallappanahosahally
Kasaba Hobli, V.R.Doddi Post
Kanakapura Taluk
Ramanagara District
Bengaluru-560 032
** ....DEFENDANTS**
2T.A.447/2017 in O.A.No.69/2017**Counsels on record/appeared for:**
**Applicant** : Sri K.Vijendra Rao
**D1 to D6** : Ex-parte
**FINAL ORDERS**
The present Application came to be registered on 26.09.2016 on the basis of jurisdictional transfer and renumbered as Transfer Application No.447/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.22,62,141/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh sixty-two thousand one hundred and forty-one only) from the Defendants together with interest and cost.
2. The case of the applicant bank is that one late Sanjeevamma w/o late Muniyappa during her life time and her two sons i.e., defendants 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank for financial assistance for purchase of Tractor and trailer. The applicant bank considered their request and sanctioned tractor loan of Rs.4,95,000/- vide sanction letter dated 17.08.2004. Deceased Sanjeevamma and defendants 1 and 2 have executed necessary and requisite loan related documents in favour of the applicant bank. After availing the loan, the defendants failed to regularize the loan account and
also failed to pay the installments, they did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. Hence, the O.A was filed and now numbered as TA.447/2017. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., loan application, sanction memorandum, memorandum of agreement, particulars of vehicle, quotation, delivery challans, receipt voucher, form No.23, revival letters, registered simple mortgage deed, demand notice, certified copy of account extract etc.
3. Further the defendants agreed to repay the above loan with variable rates of interest, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and keep the account regular by paying installments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.
4. The defendants after utilizing the entire loan proceeds for the above said purpose have failed to make the repayments of the loan dues as agreed and they have not serviced the interest thereon as per the terms and conditions agreed by
them and became chronic defaulters and hence, the recovery process is initiated against the defendants to recover the dues.
5. It is stated by applicant bank that said Sanjeevamma died, hence her Legal Heirs are already parties to OA and arrayed as defendants No.1 to 6 including defendant No.1 and 2 who are sons of late Sanjeevamma and also in the capacity personally as borrower of loan.
6. In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that, Defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.22,62,141/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh sixty-two thousand one hundred and forty-one only).
7. After filing the OA, summons were sent through RPAD and same were returned with postal shara as 'not in village'. Thereafter paper publications were made, even then when defendants were called out, defendants remained absent and hence, they were placed ex parte.
8. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Manager, Mrs. S.Janaki, has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and marked at Ex. A-1.
and list of documents came to be marked as Ex.A-2 and 25 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-27.
1. 9. No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.
2. 10. Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/applicant bank heard and perused the records of the case.
3. 11. Following points arise for my consideration:
1. a) Whether Plaintiff/applicant bank proves its case as contended in the plaint/application?
2. b) What order?
4. 12. For the following reasons, I answer the above referred points in the following manner:
**REASONS**
1. 13. Mrs. S.Janaki, Manager of the applicant bank came to be examined as AW-1. Her affidavit by way of evidence reiterates the facts pleaded in the plaint and her affidavit is also corroborated by the above referred Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-27 which clearly establish the case of the applicant bank to allow the present TA. Added to this, the defendants remained absent, hence it is to be construed that the defendants have admitted
the entire case pleaded by the applicant bank as sought in the present TA.
14. Therefore, for these reasons, present TA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the applicant bank.
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.
**:O R D E R:**
Present TA stands allowed with costs.
Defendants 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.22,62,141/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh sixty-two thousand one hundred and forty-one only) with interest at the rate of 13.95% p.a. compounded half yearly, from the date of application till the date of realization, as sought by the Applicant Bank in the TA.
In the event of failure of Defendants 1 and 2 to pay the said TA amount, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the hypothecated movable assets as described in the Schedule-A and the mortgaged immovable properties as described in the Schedule-B of the main petition in accordance with law as sought by the applicant bank in the TA.
In spite of sale of the properties mentioned in the Schedule/s, if the OA amount is not fully realized, then the Applicant Bank is at liberty to proceed against the person and personal properties of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also against properties inherited by the defendant Nos.3 to 6 from late Sanjeevama, as required under law and also as advised., Applicant Bank shall file fresh Memo of calculation of TA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by Defendants duly taking into account the amount/s if any paid by the Defendants and/or amount realized by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening period after filing the TA, to enable the office to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank.
Office is directed to issue Recovery Certificate.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7<sup>th</sup> day of September, 2019)
**(K. Ravindran Nair)** **Presiding Officer** **I/C - DRT II, Bengaluru**
8T.A.447/2017 in O.A.No.69/2017**ANNEXURES:****LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT-BANK:**
AW.1 – Mrs.S.Janaki Manager of Applicant bank
**LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT BANK:**
Ex.A1 : Affidavit of AW.1 Ex.A2 : List of documents Exs.A3 – A.27 : 25 documents
**LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :**
- NIL -
**LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:**
-NIL-
**(K Ravindran Nair) Presiding Officer I/c-DRT-II, Bengaluru**
c/