Allowed

Canara Bank, Formerly Syndicate Bank, v. M/s.Rdl Services

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/739/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a transfer application by Canara Bank against three defendants. Upholding the unchallenged evidence of default and outstanding loan, the court permitted recovery of the principal sum with future interest and authorized recovery via sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,51,119.84 with future interest and costs; sale of hypothecated assets permitted; Recovery Certificate issued to officer.

Canara Bank, Formerly Syndicate Bank, versus… — 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.739 OF 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.369/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Canara Bank,

¶6

Formerly Syndicate Bank, Arumbakkam Branch, No.41/49, Janakiram Colony Main Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Rep. by the Senior Manager of Koyembedu Branch, Chennai.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s.RDL Services, Rep. by its partners a) Mr.S.Ragavendhar & b) Mr.M.Lokesh Kumar No.18, A3, Pam Villa, Vallalar Street, Padmanabha Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.

¶10

Mr.S.Ragavendhar S/o L. Srinivasan, No. 3/D, Ultra Ammer Avenue, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094 .

¶11

Mr.M.Lokesh Kumar, S/o.P.Manavalan, No.2/3, Vishak Avenue, Thiruverkadu, Chennai – 600 077.

¶12

… Defendants.

¶13

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.Sreenivasulu. Defendants : Exparte.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.26,51,119.84 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

¶17

by sale of hypotheca.

¶18

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

¶19

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶20

The 1^st defendant a partnership firm represented by 2^nd and 3^rd defendants had applied and availed the following facilities from the

¶21

erstwhile Syndicate Bank.

¶22

SL. No.	Credit Facility	Amount
1.	SOD	Rs. 7,00,000/-
2.	Term loan	Rs. 1,99,000/-
3.	Term loan	Rs. 10,00,000/-

¶23

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of

¶24

necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶25

¶26

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the Machinery and receivables were marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶27

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 29.03.2017.

¶28

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the loan accounts and pay back the due amount and in spite of the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount.

¶29

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.

¶30

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 09.10.2019. Since Syndicate Bank got amalgamated with Canara Bank, the later got amalgamated in place of Applicant.

¶31

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A23 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant that the property to be proceeded first 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. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.

¶38

In view of the finding as entered above

¶39

i) TA No.739/2023 stands allowed.

¶40

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 26,51,119.84/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty One

¶41

¶42

Thousands One Hundred Nineteen and Eighty Four Paisa only) with future and pendentelite interest @17.50% p.a. on Rs.11,30,046.65, @10.75% p.a. on Rs.2,31,599.09 and Rs.12,89,474.10 respectively 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 and by sale of hypotheca.

¶43

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms.

¶44

iv) 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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Sd./-

¶49

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

¶50

Canara Bank, Formerly Syndicate Bank, v. M/s.Rdl Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank, Formerly Syndicate Bank, v. M/s.Rdl Services

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