Allowed

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag v. M/s Smaat Apps and Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

DRT22 Sept 2023TA/450/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate regarding a defaulted Business Installment Loan. Based on unchallenged documentary evidence and the proof affidavit, the court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for the outstanding amount and permitted the sale of assets for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 15,57,587.67p with 12% simple interest and costs to the applicant against the defendants jointly and severally.

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s Smaat Apps and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.450 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I, Chennai as OA No.739 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.450 of 2023)

¶7

M/s Deutsche Bank AG Presently Having Business at 4-4A, Western Tower Sunny Side, Ground Floor Shafi Mohammed Road, Thousand Lights Chennai – 600 006 Represented by its Authorised Representative Mr. S. Thajudeen …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s SMAAT Apps and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Director Mrs. Sujithra Velayudhan Harish Viceroy, Plot No. 3 & 4 Chandrasekar Layout, Bazaar Road Velacherry Main Road, Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091

¶10

Mrs. Sujithra Velayudhan Flat No.4E, KG Bellaire 28C, 100 Feet, Bye Pass Road Velacherry, Chennai – 600 042 …Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants’ seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,57,587.67p together with interest at the rate of 13.15% per annum with monthly rests from the date

¶14

¶15

of filing of this application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application.

¶16

The subject matter of the case is the Business Installment Loan availed by the defendants from the applicant bank.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants approached the applicant vide Loan Application dated 17.01.2017 for grant of Business Installment Loan and considering the said request the applicant granted a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- on 30.01.2017 under Loan Account No.250030547090019 repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.84,235/- each commencing from 05.03.2017 till 05.02.2020. The 2^nd defendant executed personal guarantee on 30.01.2017. It is also stated that the defendant executed various loan and security documents on 30.01.2017 to secure the said facility.

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that the defendants violated the terms and conditions of sanction and committed default in repayments and failed to regularize the loan accounts despite repeated request and hence the applicant issued a legal notice on 26.11.2018 calling upon the defendant to clear the outstanding dues. It is stated that despite repeated requests the defendant did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that after availing the loan, the defendants were irregular in remitting the loan amount. The efforts of the applicant bank to make the defendants to settle the loan did not yield any result, and hence the applicant approached this Tribunal seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate allowing recovery of the amount due in the account.

¶20

¶21

Summons taken out to the defendants returned unserved with endorsement “Unclaimed”. As there was no representation on behalf of the defendant continuously and on 11.03.2020, the defendants were called absent and set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 10 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-10 on 25.05.2022. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 21.08.2023 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶22

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶23

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendants?

¶24

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶25

These issues are considered together.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶27

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-10 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendants. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account

¶28

¶29

produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶30

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶31

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendants is a Business Loan and the applicant has claimed interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

¶32

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶33

(a) TA No.450 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶34

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.15,57,587.67p from the defendants jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of the OA till date of realization after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendants.

¶35

¶36

¶37

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶38

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶39

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.

¶40

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22^nd day of September, 2023)

¶41

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

¶42

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag v. M/s Smaat Apps and Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag v. M/s Smaat Apps and Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

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

Mrs S Saroja versus State Bank of India

S Paldurai versus Canara Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s.Sun Traders

A C Velmurugan versus City Union Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. v. Ammani

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Panneerselvam