Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/s.Ahb Isfa Traders

DRT13 Feb 2024OA/385/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by UCO Bank to recover Rs.24,33,943/- with future interest at 10% p.a. from the proprietors of a proprietary concern, dismissing their default on loans despite their absence.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.24,33,943/- with future interest @10% p.a. from respondents personally and via sale of properties; issued Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus M/s.Ahb Isfa Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 13^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.385 of 2022

¶4

UCO Bank, (IFSC Code No. UCBA0002213), Represented by its Chief Manager, Mr.T.P.Vinodh Kumar, Thiruvannamalai Branch, No.76/A, Mathalankula Street, Thiruvannamalai – 606 601.

¶5

… Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s.AHB ISFA Traders, Represented by Proprietor, Mrs.A.Barkath, W/o.Mr.Ansardeen, No.34/15, Aadu Thotty Street, Thiruvannamalai – 606 601.

¶8

Mrs.A.Barkath, W/o.Mr.Ansardeen, No.34/15, Aadu Thotty Street, Thiruvannamalai – 606 601. ...Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.Mariappan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery

¶11

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.24,33,943/- with

¶12

¶13

further interest from the date of filing of the OA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also

¶14

by sale of the schedule mentioned movable properties.

¶15

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶16

The 1^st defendant a proprietary concern with 2^nd defendant as its

¶17

proprietrix had applied for and availed the following facilities:

¶18

Sl. No.	Credit facility	Amount
1.	Cash Credit	Rs.18,00,000/-
2.	Term loan (GECL)	Rs.1,98,000/-
3.	Term loan II	Rs. 1,31,773/-
4.	Term loan III	Rs. 39,750/-

¶19

The cash credit facility was originally availed for Rs.10,00,000 and the

¶20

same is enhanced to Rs.18,00,000/-.

¶21

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of

¶22

necessary loan documents by defendants obliging to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶23

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents hypothecation over movables were created.

¶24

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 even the hypothecated goods were sold out.

¶25

¶26

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant 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. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests the applicant had issued a notice dated

¶27

29.11.2021 requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶28

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant 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.

¶29

Even as the defendants failed to appear, they were set exparte on 30.03.2023.

¶30

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A 18 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶31

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter.

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim?

¶33

¶34

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

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. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the OA claim is arrived at calculating interest at agreed rate and also taking note of the fact that there is no collateral, the prayer for calculating interest at monthly rest is rejected and interest is awarded at 10% p.a. (simple).

¶37

In view of the finding as entered above

¶38

i) OA No.385 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶39

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.24,33,943/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Thirty Three Thousands Nine Hundred and Forty Three only) with future

¶40

¶41

and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date

¶42

of filing of the OA till realization from the defendants personally and also by proceeding against their properties after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 13^th day of February, 2024)

¶48

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

¶49

Uco Bank v. M/s.Ahb Isfa Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/s.Ahb Isfa Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/s. Tamilian Educational Academy

Indian Bank versus Mr. S. Parthasarathy

Indian Bank versus Rare India Exim Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Canara Bank versus M/s.612 International Clothing & Co.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Rama Thamilarasan

Canara Bank versus Mr.T.Subramani (Deceased)