Allowed

Dbs Bank India Ltd., v. . M/s.Sri Senthil Agency

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for recovery of a debt of Rs.23,14,304.52. The court held the evidence was uncontroverted, the claim was within limitation, and ordered recovery from defendants jointly and severally, including sale of scheduled properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.23,14,304.52 with interest at 12.80% from filing date, authorized sale of scheduled property, and ordered issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Dbs Bank India Ltd., versus . M/s.Sri Senthil Agency — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.669 OF 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.8/2021–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

DBS Bank India Ltd., Erstwhile The Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Sankarapuram Branch, No.37/2A-3, G.K.R.Complex, Kallakurichi Road, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District.

¶7

… APPLICANT.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s.Sri Senthil Agency,

¶10

Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.M.Senthilkumar,

¶11

No.88/2, Bus Stand,

¶12

Kattuvannanjur, Sankarapuram,

¶13

Villupuram District – 606401.

¶14

Mr.M.Senthilkumar,

¶15

S/o.Mr.Munusamy,

¶16

No.77, Tirukovilur Main Road,

¶17

Kattuvannanjur, Sankarapuram,

¶18

Villupuram District – 606401. (PAN:CPHPS2270E)

¶19

Mrs.R.Elavarasi,

¶20

W/o.Mr.M.Senthilkumar,

¶21

No.77, Tirukovilur Main Road, Kattuvannanjur, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District – 606401. … DEFENDANTS

¶22

(Amended as per memo order dt.28.06.2022)

¶23

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.P.Suhadev. Defendants : Exparte.

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.23,14,304.52 (Twenty Three Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Four and Fifty Two paisa only) with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendants jointly and severally and also by ordering sale of the schedule mentioned properties.

¶27

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

¶28

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:The 1^st defendant a proprietory concern with 2^nd defendant as proprietor being the borrower and 3^rd defendant being the guarantor had applied for and availed Lakshmi Business Credit facility from the erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank.

¶29

It is also stated that the above facilities were 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 defendant had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the A schedule mentioned properties. Apart from execution of the necessary

¶31

¶32

loan documents, hypothecation over the stocks and book debts were marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶33

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 29.10.2018.

¶34

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 though no repayment was made despite repeated request the applicant had on 19.01.2019 issued a demand notice as per proceedings under SARFAESI Act requiring repayment of the amount due in the account. Subsequently a possession notice was also issued on 24.07.2019.

¶35

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 OA 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 28.06.2022. After the amalgamation of Lakshmi Vilas Bank, the applicant got substituted in its place.

¶37

¶38

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 A28 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶42

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶43

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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant

¶44

is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is purely commercial, the OA is to be allowed as claimed.

¶45

¶46

13.In view of the finding as entered above

¶47

i) TA.No.669 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶48

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.23,14,304.52 (Twenty Three Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Four and Fifty Two paisa only) being the total due amount with future and pendentelite interest @12.80% 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.

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Rules, 1993.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

Dbs Bank India Ltd., v. . M/s.Sri Senthil Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dbs Bank India Ltd., v. . M/s.Sri Senthil Agency

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