Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Vivekananda Builders

DRT27 Mar 2024OA/129/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant State Bank of India sought a Recovery Certificate under RD&BA against borrowers and guarantors. The Tribunal found the claim undisputed, allowed the application, and directed issuance of a certificate for Rs.32.14 lakhs plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.32,14,941/- with future and pendentelite interest @12% p.a. and permission to recover costs.

State Bank of India versus Sri Vivekananda Builders — Insurance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.129 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India, SME Walajapet Branch, 1^st Floor, Palar Towers, MBT Road, Walajapet – 632 513. Vellore District. Rep. by its Chief Manager. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sri Vivekananda Builders, Rep. by Prop. E.Vinayagam,

¶8

Mrs.V.Ramani, W/o.Late Mr.E.Vinayagam.

¶9

Ms.Vinitha, D/o.Late Mr.E.Vinayagam.

¶10

Mr.Vivek, S/o.Late Mr.E.Vinayagam.

¶11

Mrs.Rukkammal E, (Deceased) M/o.Late Mr.E.Vinaygam. All are residing at 13/14A, Selva Vinayagar Street, Puliyanthangal Erikarai, BHEL, Ranipet – 634 406. …Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Suresh Law Associates. Defendants 1 to 4 : Exparte. 5^th Defendant : Deceased. …..

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.32,14,941/- due in the Cash Credit loan availed by the proprietor of 1^st defendant and 2^nd defendant.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant proprietary concern represented by deceased proprietor Mr.Vinayagam availed Cash Credit loan of Rs.23,00,000/- for which 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor, which were subsequently enhanced to Rs.60,00,000/-. It is stated that the said facility is secured by mortgage of ‘B’ schedule mentioned properties and by hypothecation of ‘A’ schedule mentioned assets. It is also stated that another Stand By Line of Credit amount of Rs.9,00,000/- sanctioned to the late Vinayagam and 2^nd defendant was closed by late Vinayagam. It is further stated that since the proprietor of 1^st defendant late Mr.Vinayagam died on 08.09.2020 the defendants 2 to 5, the legal heirs are arrayed as parties.

¶16

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make

¶17

¶18

the defendants pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to

¶19

file this Application.

¶20

Summons was taken out and as the defendants 1 to 4 failed to appear they were set exparte on 01.09.2023. The 5^th defendant was deceased and a memo is filed by the applicant not to press claim against D5.

¶21

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A23.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶23

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim?

¶24

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

The Applicant’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @12% p.a. (simple).

¶27

¶28

In view of the above:

¶29

i) OA No.129 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.32,14,941/(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousands Nine Hundred and Forty One Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest @12% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till realization from the 2^nd defendant personally and also from her assets and from the assets of the 1^st defendant proprietary concern including the sale of schedule mentioned properties and hypothecated assets, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA. The liability of 3^rd and 4^th defendants is limited to the extent of assets inherited from late Mr.E.Vinayagam. Claim against D5 is already dismissed vide proceedings dt.01.09.2023.

¶31

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.

¶32

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 27^th day of March, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

State Bank of India v. Sri Vivekananda Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Vivekananda Builders

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

Canara Bank versus G. Edison

Bank of Baroda versus Jayakandan

State Bank of India versus Mr. S. Natarajan

State Bank of India versus Paramesh

Canara Bank versus Mr. S. Pannerselvam

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Raam Oil Mills