Allowed

Indian Bank v. Arshiya Fathima

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/340/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed a transfer application filed by Indian Bank to recover an MSME loan outstanding from the defendant. Being an ex parte matter with uncontroverted evidence, the judgment permitted recovery of the principal sum along with future interest from the defendant's assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.54,64,126/- with future interest at 13.65% p.a. from the defendant and her assets, including hypothecated movables. Issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Indian Bank versus Arshiya Fathima — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.340 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.467/2020–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Indian Bank, Ambur Branch, IFS Code – IDIB000A016, 21/11, Oomer Road Ambur, Vellore District, Pincode - 635 802.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs.B.Arshiya Fathima, W/o.J.Abrar Ahmed, ITPAN: BLMPA3329J, Prop: M/s.Elite Auto Studio, 1/230/169, Chennai- Bangalore NH, Pillaiyarkuppam, Perumugai, Vellore District - 632 009. Also at: 13/7, Bangari Babun Kollai Street, Ambur, Vellore District. Pincode – 635 802. … Defendant.

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Rajendran Raghavan Defendant : Exparte.

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.54,64,126/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant.

¶13

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶14

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶15

The defendant availed a Cash Credit MSME loan for Rs.43,95,000/- from the applicant.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of the necessary loan documents by the defendant, obliging herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents by the defendant, hypothecation over the stocks and book debts were marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶18

Even though the defendant had obliged herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, she failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 31.05.2018.

¶19

¶20

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting her to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶22

Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, she was set exparte on 27.06.2022.

¶23

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A11 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim?

¶27

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶28

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remains exparte. 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 TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and his assets (including the scheduled mentioned hypothecated movables). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.

¶31

In view of the finding as entered above

¶32

i) TA No.340/2022 stands allowed.

¶33

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.54,64,126/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty Six only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 13.65% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant after giving credit to all the amounts recovered

¶34

¶35

and received during the pendency of the TA and also by proceeding against the assets of the defendant including the schedule mentioned hypothecated assets.

¶36

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms.

¶37

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶38

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.

¶39

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 29^th day of December, 2023)

¶40

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶41

Indian Bank v. Arshiya Fathima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Arshiya Fathima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus R.Ramesh

M/s Canara Bank Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank versus T.R. Saravanan

Deutsche Bank Ag versus Kothari Bath Concepts

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari