Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S.Sree Krishna Cashews

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/68/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II, Chennai allowed the transfer application filed by the Central Bank of India for recovery of a loan of Rs.91,52,183/- with interest from two cashew business defendants who failed to repay the facility and defaulted.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.91,52,183/- with 14.50% p.a. interest, sale of schedule property, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Central Bank of India versus M/S.Sree Krishna… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.68 OF 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.403/2020–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Central Bank of India, Panruti Branch, No.65, Cuddalore Main Road, Panruti – 607 106. Represented by its Authorised Officer, (IFSC Code: CBIN0280892).

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s. Sree Krishna Cashews, a proprietary concern, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.M.Krishnasamy, S/o.Mr.Mutharasu, Having office at 100 Panruti Old Main Road, Panikkamkuppam, Panruti- 607 106.

¶9

Mr. M.Krishnasamy, S/o Mr.Mutharasu, Proprietor of M/s.Sree Krishna Cashews, Residing at East Street, Melampattu, Panriti Taluk, Cuddalore District, Panruti-607 103.

¶10

… Defendants.

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.E.Vijayaraghavan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs. Rs.91,52,183/- 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 proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned property.

¶15

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

¶16

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶17

The 1^st defendant proprietary concern with 2^nd defendant as the proprietor applied for and availed the credit facility of Rs. 49,00,000/from the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 2^nd defendant had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties. Over and above execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the tangible assets were marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶20

¶21

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 09.06.2016.

¶22

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 requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶23

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.

¶24

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 03.06.2022.

¶25

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 A12 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶26

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶27

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter.

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

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 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.

¶33

In view of the finding as entered above

¶34

i) TA No.68/2023 stands allowed.

¶35

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover the total amount of Rs.91,52,183/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs Fifty Two Thousands One Hundred and Eighty Three only) with

¶36

¶37

future and pendentelite interest @14.50% p.a. from the

¶38

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 .

¶39

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants and

¶40

their other assets are liable to be proceed against.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Sd./-

¶47

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

¶48

Central Bank of India v. M/S.Sree Krishna Cashews

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S.Sree Krishna 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 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