Allowed

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd, v. . M/s.M.S.R.Ramadoss & Sons

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal examined an unrebutted claim by a bank for recovery of a loan amount of Rs.72,33,451/- with interest. The court found the evidence admissible and the claim within limitation, subsequently allowing the application and permitting recovery through sale of properties and issue of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.72,33,451/- plus pendentelite interest; property to be sold; Recovery Certificate to be issued; costs awarded.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd, versus . M/s.M.S.R.Ramadoss & Sons — Banking and Recovery | 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.444 OF 2022 (Old OA.No.135/2021–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd, Thanjavur Branch, No.56/102, Abraham Pandithar Road, Thanjavur – 613 001. Rep. by its Manager Mr.M.Prathapan, IFSC Code is TMBL 0000067.

¶5

… Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s.M.S.R.Ramadoss & Sons,

¶8

Represented by its

¶9

Prop.Mr.R.Prabudoss,

¶10

S/o.M.S.R.Ramadoss,

¶11

No. 35, North Vaniya Street,

¶12

Orathanadu – 614 625.

¶13

Thanjavur District.

¶14

PAN No. – ASXPP5604Q.

¶15

Mr.R.Prabudoss,

¶16

S/o.M.S.R.Ramadoss, Prop. M/s M.S.R.Ramadoss & Sons,

¶17

Old No.11, New No. 27/3,

¶18

North Vaniya Street Orathanadu,

¶19

Thanjavur – 614 625.

¶20

¶21

Mrs.R.Kalaiselvi, W/o. Mr.M.S.R.Ramadoss, Old No – 10-A, New No.-27, North Vaniya Street, Orathanadu – 614 625. Thanjavur District. … Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.N.Chinnakrishnan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.72,33,451/- 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 sale of the schedule mentioned properties.

¶25

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

¶26

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶27

The 1^st defendant a proprietary concern represented by 2^nd respondent the proprietor being the borrower and 3^rd defendant being the guarantor had applied for and availed a cash credit for Rs. 60,00,000/from the applicant.

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 2^nd & 3^rd defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties. Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the movables was marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶31

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 31.01.2020.

¶32

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 requests, the applicant had on 03.02.2020 caused to issue a recall notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶33

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the

¶34

¶35

applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶36

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 12.07.2022.

¶37

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 A 29 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶41

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶42

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain 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

¶43

¶44

entitled to get the amount recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned properties). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.

¶45

In view of the finding as entered above

¶46

i) TA No.444/2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.72,33,451/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Thirty Three Thousands Four Hundred and Fifty One only) with future and pendentelate interest @ 12.60% p.a. from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and by sale of hypotheca after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA including the amount covered by part satisfaction memo.

¶47

iii) The schedule properties if any available to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceed against.

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

v) 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.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd, v. . M/s.M.S.R.Ramadoss & Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd, v. . M/s.M.S.R.Ramadoss & Sons

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