Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s. Sri Jayalakshmi Dhayalan Solid & Hollow Bricks

DRT6 Feb 2024OA/349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of a recovery certificate. The bank proved its loan contracts and failure to repay without rebuttal. The court awarded the principal amount, future interest on specific components, sale of mortgaged properties, and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.29,58,510/- with future interest; schedule properties to be sold; second defendant held personally liable if proceeds are insufficient.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Jayalakshmi Dhayalan Solid… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 6^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.349 of 2022

¶5

State Bank of India Polur Branch No. 14/A1 to 14/A5, Abdul Kuthoos Street, Polur – 606 803 Tiruvannamalai District …Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s. Sri Jayalakshmi Dhayalan Solid & Hollow Bricks Represented by Proprietor. S. Asha, No. 1, Lakhsmi Nagar, C.C. Road, Muniyappanthangal Village, Naidumangalam Post, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District – 606 802

¶8

Mrs. S. Asha, W/o. Sundararajan (BBHPA6291A) No. 10, Tank Street, Maruthuvambadi Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk & District …Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Suresh Law Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery

¶12

¶13

Certificate for Rs.29,58,510/-, i.e. Rs. 26,88,398/- due in the credit facility of Cash Credit and Rs. 2,70,112/- due in the credit facility of Term Loan availed by the defendants and for sale of the schedule mentioned properties along with costs.

¶14

The Applicant Bank further contends that the credit facilities totaling of Rs.24,15,810/- i.e. Rs. 22,00,000/- under Cash Credit facility and Rs. 2,15,810/- under Term Loan (FITL) facility were availed by defendants and 2^nd defendant mortgaged her properties. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule propertyas well as hypothecation.

¶15

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

¶16

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amounts, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendants pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶17

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance,they were setexparte on 07.03.2023.

¶18

¶19

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit

¶20

in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs A1 to A11.

¶21

Heard.The following issues arise for consideration:

¶22

i. Whether the Applicant Bank had proved the OA claim?

¶23

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶24

Both these issues are decided together

¶25

The Applicant Bank’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank is found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶26

In view of the above

¶27

i. OA. No: 349of 2022stands allowed

¶28

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.29,58,510/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Ten Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest @ 14.75% on Rs.26,88,398/- and @ 14.5% on Rs.2,70,112/-, both with monthly restsfrom the date of filing of the OA till realization from the defendantsafter

¶29

¶30

giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶31

iii. The schedule properties to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient,the 2^nd Defendant is /personally liable for all such amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank.

¶32

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

¶33

v. Applicant Bankis 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.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 6^th day of February, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

State Bank of India v. M/s. Sri Jayalakshmi Dhayalan Solid & Hollow Bricks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s. Sri Jayalakshmi Dhayalan Solid & Hollow Bricks

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 S Muthukumaran and Two Othres

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus P.Duraibabu

Bank of Baroda versus Mr.M.Suresh

Canara Bank versus M/s. Arv Wash Tech

M/s.Canara Bank, versus Mr.M.Ramesh

Bank of India versus J. Selvakannan