Allowed

Dbs Bank India Ltd., v. M. Raja

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an appeal to transfer an original application filed by DBS Bank India Ltd. (formerly Lakshmi Vilas Bank) against borrowers and guarantors. The court recovered a principal sum of Rs. 16,58,513 with interest and authorized the sale of mortgaged property and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 16,58,513 with future and pendent lite interest; direction to sell schedule property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Dbs Bank India Ltd., versus M. Raja — Money Laundering | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.798 OF 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.41/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

DBS Bank India Ltd., Erstwhile The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Kallakurichi Branch , No.19, Salem Main Road, Kallakurichi-606 202. Villupuram District. Represented by its Branch Manager.

¶6

… APPLICANT.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M. Raja, S/o Mr. Mannankatti, Prop. M/S.BALAJI TRADERS, No.12/131, Kulathumettu Street, Karadichitur, Kachirapalayam Post, Kallakurichi-606 207. Villupuram District.

¶9

R. Kanimozhi, W/o Mr. M. Raja, No.12/131, Kulathumettu Street, Karadichitur, Kachirapalayam Post, Kallakurichi-606 207. Villupuram District. … DEFENDANTS.

¶10

(Amended as per Memo order dt.29.09.2022)

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.P.Suhadev. 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.16,58,513/- with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of the schedule mentioned mortgaged 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 a proprietary concern being the borrower and the father of the 1^st defendant initially being extended a mortgage by excecuting MODT for the credit facility had applied for availed Lakshmi Business Credit facility of Rs. 15,00,000/- from erst while Lakshmi Vilas Bank. It is also stated that 2^nd defendant stood as a guarantor to the facility.

¶18

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail. The second defendant had executed letter of guarantee.

¶19

¶20

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the father of 1^st defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned property and hypothecation over the goods/book debts/existing machineries was also created as security for repayment of the loan.

¶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 02.04.2018.

¶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. It is also stated that the mortgage created by father of 1^st defendant, who expired on 07.04.2015 leaving behind Mrs.Chinnapillai-wife, Mrs.Amutha, Mrs.Ambika and Mrs. Anusuya –daughters and one Mr. Raja-son. The other legal heirs released and relinquished their respective rights in favour of Mr.Raja under deed of release Doc. No.430 of 2016 dt.15.03.2016 on the file of SRO, Vadakkananthal. It is also contended that the 1^st defendant executed a supplementary mortgage dated 17.06.2017 in favour of applicant and subrogate into liabilities

¶23

¶24

of the principle mortgage deed dated 05.11.2014 registered as Doc.No. 1625 of 2014.

¶25

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated remainders 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.

¶26

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 10.04.2019. After the amalgamation of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank with the applicant, the Applicant got substituted in place of Lakshmi Vilas Bank.

¶27

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 A20 and got the same marked.

¶28

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.

¶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

¶33

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 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 commercial one, the interest is allowed as prayed for.

¶34

In view of the finding as entered above

¶35

i) TA No.798 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶36

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 16,58,513/(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousands Five Hundred and Thirteen only) with future and pendentelite interest @18.25% P.A. with monthlys rest 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.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

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

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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

Dbs Bank India Ltd., v. M. Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dbs Bank India Ltd., v. M. Raja

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