Allowed

State Bank of India v. Agrubber Industtry

DRT20 Mar 2024OA/222/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's original application for a recovery certificate of Rs.20,17,922/- with future interest, noting evidence remained un-rebutted.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.20,17,922/- with future and pendentelite interest at 9% p.a. simple.

What the court decided

State Bank of India versus Agrubber Industtry — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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.222 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India, RASMECCC & SARG Branch, No.97, 7^th East Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore-632 006. Rep. by its Chief Managar

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.A.G. Rubber Induatry, Rep. by Prop. M.Vijay Kumar, Office at. No. 603, Chevidin Thangal Village, Vennamballi Post & Panchayath, Sholingur Block, Kalpadi Taluk,

¶9

Vellore District.

¶10

Mr. M.Vijay Kumar, S/o.Shri Manogar Babu, Residing at. No. 2/35A, Puttavarpalli, Arni (Sambuvarayar) Vellore Thaluk. …Defendants.

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Suresh Law Associates Defendants : Exparte.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶14

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.20,17,922/- due to the various loans availed by the

¶15

defendants.

¶16

¶17

The Applicant contends that a Cash Credit loan of Rs.4.75Lakhs, Term Loan of Rs.18.50Lakhs, Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) Lone of of Rs.3.91Lakhs and another GECL-EXTN Lone of Rs.1.95 under Cash Credit loan were availed by the 1^st defendant, a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor, 2^nd defendant who also extended his guarantee. It is also stated that the said facilities were secured by hypothecation of assets.

¶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 appear they were set exparte on 09.10.2023.

¶20

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A13.

¶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

¶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 @9% p.a. (simple).

¶27

In view of the above:

¶28

i) OA No.222 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.20,17,922/(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Two Only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till realization from the defendants jointly, serverally, personally and also from their assets including the sale of schedule mentioned hypothecated assets, 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 amount as per the above terms.

¶31

¶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

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT

¶34

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶35

(Dictated to steno2, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20th day of March, 2024)

¶36

Sd./-

¶37

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

¶38

State Bank of India v. Agrubber Industtry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

State Bank of India v. Agrubber Industtry

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

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises

Bank of India versus Durga Granites

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s Vel and Co.