Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/s.Ammu Bricks India (Borrower)

DRT20 Mar 2024OA/7/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Indian Bank seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court found the applicant's evidence un-rebutted and sufficient to prove the claim of approximately Rs. 70.86 lakhs plus future interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 66,63,872/- plus Rs. 4,22,234/- with future and pendentelite interest at 7.5% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing.

Indian Bank versus M/s.Ammu Bricks India (Borrower) — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 20^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.7 of 2023

¶5

Indian Bank, Hundred Feet Road Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager, No.66/4A, East Coast Road, Pakkamudiyanpet, Puducherry – 605 008.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.Ammu Bricks India (Borrower), A Proprietorship Concern Represented by its Sole Proprietor, Mrs.M.Ammu, W/o.Mr.Marudhu, Having its place of business at No.3, Chidamabaram Road, Ayyannur Village & Post, Cuddalore District – 608 201.

¶9

Mrs.M.Ammu, W/o.Mr.Marudhu, Having her residence at :- No.3/34, Murugan Koil Street, Anagur, Villupuram – 605 103.

¶10

Also at:Vanga Sapidalam Hotel, Opposite to Sree Pidariamman Temple, Near Pillur Panchayat Office, Pillur, Villupuram – 605 103. … Defendants.

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Karush Associates. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶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 a sum of Rs.66,63,872/- due in Term Loan and Rs.4,22,234/- due in IND-GECLS-Covid Loan availed by the defendants.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant, a proprietary concern represented by 2^nd defendant as its proprietor availed Term Loan of Rs.55,00,000/-, Working Capital of Rs.12,00,000/- and IND-GECLSCOVID Loan of Rs.3,80,000/- The applicant also stated that the SOD A/c. was secured by the Fixed Deposit Receipt and as per the terms of sanction, the Term Loan was disbursed by way account credit into the SOD A/c. It is further stated that the fixed deposit receipt of the defendants secured towards repayment of SOD A/c. was realised and the amount was credited into the SOD A/c and the same was closed. Hence, the claim in this OA is restricted to only Term Loan and INDGECLS-COVID Loan. The said facilities were secured by hypothecation of assets described in schedule to the OA.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

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 the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 01.08.2023.

¶20

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1 who filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A15.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶22

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim?

¶23

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are decided together.

¶25

The Applicant’s evidence remains 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 OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, the pendentelite and future interest is awarded @7.5% p.a. (simple).

¶26

¶27

In view of the above

¶28

i) OA No.7/2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.66,63,872/(Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs Sixty Three Thousands Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) and Rs.4,22,234/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Two Thousands Two Hundred and Thirty Four only) with future and pendentelite interest @7.5% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets including the sale of schedule mentioned hypothecated assets from the date of filing of the OA till realization after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day of March, 2024)

¶36

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

¶37

Indian Bank v. M/s.Ammu Bricks India (Borrower)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/s.Ammu Bricks India (Borrower)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased)

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Agrubber Industtry

Bank of India versus Durga Granites

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T.