R.A. No. 135 of 2015. Case: S. Anandan and Ors. Vs State Bank of India. Chennai DRAT DRAT Cases

Case NumberR.A. No. 135 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: R. Baskar and R. Natarajan, Advocates
JudgesDr. K.G. Shankar, J. (Chairperson)
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 34; Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 22
Judgement DateOctober 08, 2015
CourtChennai DRAT DRAT Cases


Dr. K.G. Shankar, J. (Chairperson)

  1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in TA 1773/2002 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore (DRT, for short) impugn the final order dated 5th January, 2005. The applicant in TA 1773/2002 is the sole respondent herein. They shall be referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed before the DRT. The defendant No. 1 is the borrower. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantors. The defendant No. 1 availed loan from the applicant Bank on 25th April, 1997 for a sum of Rs. 18.40 lakh and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 13.5% p.a. with half-yearly rests. The loan was an Agricultural Term Loan repayable in instalments at Rs. 31,000/- p.m. Admittedly, till January, 2000, the defendant No. 1 made payments regularly. When he committed default in the payment of instalments, the applicant Bank invoked the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act, for short) and filed OA No. 552/2001 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore and was renumbered as TA 1773/2002. The claim was allowed for a sum of Rs. 17,82,332 payable jointly and severally by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 together with interest® 13.5 p.a., with half-yearly rests from the date of OA No. 552/2001 till realisation. The order in TA 1773/2002 dated 5th January, 2005 is now assailed.

  2. Mr. C. Ravichandran, learned Counsel for the applicant Bank submitted that after the TA 1773/2002 was allowed and after DRC No. 107/2005 was issued, the case was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai and was numbered as TA 243/2008. He pointed out that the defendants question the rate of interest and submitted that in view of Section 22 of RDDBFI Act, Section 34 of CPC does not apply.

  3. Mr. R. Bhaskar, learned Counsel for the defendants on the other hand submitted that the interest is liable to be scaled down. He stated that a criminal case was initiated against the defendant No. 1 in CC No. 20/2001 on the ground that the defendant No. 1 allegedly committed theft of electricity. In view of involvement in the criminal case and the pendency of the criminal lis, the defendant No. 1 could not repay the instalments after January 2000. The learned Counsel for defendants further submitted that the defendant No. 1 could not appear before the DRT on account of his involvement in the criminal case which was pending. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT