Allowed

Indian Bank v. K. Dhanalakshmi

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/657/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's transfer application for recovery. Since the defendant was absent, the court found the loan disbursement and default proved. Interest rates were set at 11% simple interest, and a recovery certificate was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Aggregate sum of Rs.1,95,58,356.93p with future interest @11% p.a. (simple), costs, and a Recovery Certificate to be issued to the Recovery Officer.

Indian Bank versus K. Dhanalakshmi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.657 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.97 of 2022 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.657 of 2022)

¶7

Indian Bank Ranipet I C Branch CP-4A, Industrial Complex SIPCOT, Ranipet Vellore District – 632 403 Rep. by its Branch Manager Ms. M. Jeyarani …Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

K. Dhanalakshmi W/o Mr. Karthikeyan 466/1, Rendadi Road, Krishnapuram Walaja Taluk, Vellore District

¶10

Also at 27/38, Bajanai Koil Street Krishnapuram, Walaja Taluk Vellore District – 632 405

¶11

Present address Door No.485, Subramanipalayam Street MR Puram Via. Lalapet – 632 405 …Defendant Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s T. Sundar Rajan Defendant : 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 defendant for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.1,95,58,356.93p comprising of a sum of

¶14

¶15

Rs.1,10,68,775.74p together with interest at the rate of 13.10% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under an Open Cash Credit account and a sum of Rs.84,89,581.19 with further interest at the rate of 11.10% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under a Medium Term Loan Account from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

¶16

The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶17

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

¶18

The defendant approached the applicant by submitting loan application dated 10.7.2017 for grant of credit facilities for development of its business and the applicant considering the said request sanctioned a Open Cash Credit facility of Rs.90.25 lakhs under CGTMSE Scheme and Medium Term Loan of Rs.90.25 lakhs vide sanction ticket dated 28.8.2017. The defendant executed necessary loan and security documents on 31.8.2017 and acknowledged the debt on 16.11.2019.

¶19

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, but failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 25.05.2021.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant failed to make the repayment the applicant issued legal notice

¶21

¶22

dated 14.6.2021 and no repayments were made despite the lawyer notice forcing the applicant to file this OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and costs .

¶23

The defendant remained absent and hence was set ex-parte on 12.08.2022.

¶24

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-17 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶27

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendant?

¶28

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶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 remained ex-parte. 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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and his

¶31

¶32

assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶33

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a loan facility availed by the defendant for its business purpose and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing of the OA and further as the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶34

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 and the defaults committed in repayment, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶35

(a) TA No.657 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶36

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.1,95,58,356.93p with future and pendentelite interest @11% p.a., simple from the defendant and their assets, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendant.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

Indian Bank v. K. Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. K. Dhanalakshmi

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