Allowed

Central Bank of India v. . M/s.Sabaa Cashews

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a transfer application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The court found the loan claim outstanding and within the limitation period. The tribunal permitted recovery of principal, future interest at 14.70%, and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.37,11,076.26 with future interest @14.70% p.a. and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Central Bank of India versus . M/s.Sabaa Cashews — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.399 OF 2022 (Old TA.No.391/2018–DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.213/2018–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Panruti Branch, Cuddalore Main Road, Panruti-607016. Represented by its Chief Manager Mr.P.Krishnamoorthy.

¶5

… APPLICANT.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s.Sabaa Cashews Rep.by its Proprietor: Mr.K.Thamizarasan, No.570, South Street, Nadukattu Palayam Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District-607 106.

¶8

Mr. K.Thamizarasan, S/o. Mr. Kaliyan No.570, South Street, Nadukattu Palayam Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District-607 106. … DEFENDANTS.

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.A.Sermaraj. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery

¶13

of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.37,11,076.26 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by the sale of hypothecated movable properties.

¶14

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

¶15

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:-

¶16

The 1^st defendant represented by the proprietor, 2^nd defendant being the borrower applied for and availed a cash credit facility from the applicant for Rs. 30,00,000/-.

¶17

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

¶18

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the stocks in trade were marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶19

¶20

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 31.03.2016.

¶21

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated request, the applicant had caused to issue a demand notice on 06.07.2016 requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants 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.

¶23

Even though the defendants entered appearance, they failed to appear on subsequent posting date and they were set exparte on 20.10.2023.

¶24

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

¶26

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter.

¶27

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

¶28

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶31

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 defendants and their assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the transaction being purely commercial one, the interest as claimed is also allowed.

¶32

In view of the finding as entered above

¶33

i) TA. No.399 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶34

ii) The Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.37,11,076.26 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Eleven

¶35

¶36

Thousands Seventy Six and Twenty Six Paisa only) with future and pendentelite interest @14.70% p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶40

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶41

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 30^th day of November, 2023)

¶42

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

¶43

Central Bank of India v. . M/s.Sabaa Cashews

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. . M/s.Sabaa Cashews

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 Bank versus M/s. Royal Agro and Diary Limited

M/s. Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/s V.S Enterprises

Thangamani oil Stores versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India, versus R.M.Ezhilarasu

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr.S.Rengaraj

Idbi Bank versus Ramajayam R