Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/s. Sre Pathasarathi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/73/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank to recover a principal sum of Rs. 25.90 crore plus interest from joint and several borrowers and guarantors. The tribunal fixed future interest at 9% simple and ordered the sale of schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,90,73,515.54 with interest @ 9% simple from filing of TA; sale of schedule properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Indian Bank versus M/s. Sre Pathasarathi Hotels… — 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.73 OF 2023

¶5

(Old OA No.284/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Indian Bank, SAM Branch, 55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Rep.by its Deputy General Manager Mr.Umashankar Kanugo Ifsc Code IDIB000A013

¶7

… APPLICANT.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s. Sre Parthasarathi Hotels Pvt.Ltd (PAN No.AARCS8420L) Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.P.C.Baskar No.8, Karpagambal Nagar, Chennai-600004

¶10

Mr. P C Baskar S/o. Mr. P .K Chandrasekaran

¶11

Mrs. Kanthimathi Baskar W/o. Mr. P C Baskar

¶12

Mr. Abhinav Chandran S/o. Mr. P C Baskar

¶13

All at No.89, Poes Garden Chennai-600086. … DEFENDANTS Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.V.Muralidhar. Defendants : Exparte.

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.25,90,73,515.54 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

The defendants 1 & 2 being the borrower and defendants 2 to 4 being the guarantors had applied for a Bank guarantee for Rs.32 Lakhs to the commissioner of customs for their importer/exporter license which was invoked on 15.5.2021. It is also stated that the 1^st defendant as approved by the Board of Resolution had through its Managing Director had approached the applicant and availed a Term loan for Rs.13.75 crores and a letter of credit for Rs.5 crores for which defendants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors.

¶20

It is further stated that another Bank guarantee was also extended to the 1^st defendant to the tune of Rs.30.23 Lakhs. Apart from the above, another credit facility for Rs.2.60 crores was sanctioned as

¶21

¶22

Term Loan II for which also defendants 2 to 4 executed agreement

¶23

for guarantee.

¶24

The applicant further contents that the defendants 2 to 4 executed agreement of guarantee on 30.9.2016 and the 2^nd defendant had deposited the title deeds pertaining to the schedule mentioned properties.

¶25

It is further stated that the defendants though obliged to pay the amount had committed defaults and inspite of being called up on by the applicant officials, they failed to honour the commitment. The loan accounts were classified as NPA on 31.8.2018. The applicant had issued the demand notice as provided u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 11.09.2018 and as there was no response to the same, the applicant also proceeded to take possession of the property by issuing 13(4) notice dt.03.12.2018. The applicant had filed the application seeking recovery of Rs.25,90,73,515.54 which the applicant claims as due from the defendants.

¶26

Even though the defendants were originally set exparte, the same was set aside on petition filed by D1 and D2 and reply statement filed by them were taken on record. The defendants had not denied the availment of credit facility. It is stated that the 4^th defendant had settled in USA and retired from Directorship in 2018. It is also stated

¶27

¶28

that Rs.8 Crores deposited by them was adjusted towards interest and prays for reduction of interest rate.

¶29

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 A27 were marked.

¶30

Heard the counsel for the both sides 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.

¶31

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

¶32

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as D1 and D2 filed a written statement admitting the liability. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence 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 defendants and their assets including the scheduled property. The claim of the applicant is well within the

¶35

¶36

period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the applicant has claimed contractual rate of interest from the date of filing the OA, taking note of fact that the applied rate of interest is on the higher side, this Tribunal is of the opinion that pendentelite and future interest can be awarded at a reduced rate of 9% (simple).

¶37

In view of the finding as entered above

¶38

i) TA.No.73/2023 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.25,90,73,515.54 with future and pendentelite interest @ 9% (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amounts 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 their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶40

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.

¶41

¶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 30^th day of November, 2023 )

¶46

Sd./-

¶47

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

¶48

Indian Bank v. M/s. Sre Pathasarathi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/s. Sre Pathasarathi Hotels 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

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