Allowed

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. M/s. Prithvi Engineering Industries

DRT1 Feb 2024TA/141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for a recovery certificate against an engineering firm and its guarantors for a defaulted credit facility of Rs. 61,47,682.42, permitting recovery with interest and authorization to sell schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 61,47,682.42 with future interest; schedule property to be sold; recovery from other assets if proceeds insufficient.

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/s. Prithvi… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 1^st day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.141 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.161/2022–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

M/s.The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Anna Nagar Branch, (IFSC Code: KVBL0001154), No.6, AC Block, Next Rasi Silk, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s. Prithvi Engineering Industries, (PAN No.AASFP7205J) Rep. by its Partners, Mr.K.Ramadas & Mrs.D.Karpagam, 4/1304, 4^th Block, Mugappair west, Chennai - 600 037.

¶10

Mr.K.Ramadas, (PAN No.BVLPR8289P) S/o.Mr.V.Kumar, 1348, 4^th Block, Mugappair West, Chennai - 600 037.

¶11

Mrs.D.Karpagam (PAN No.EFKPK8627E) W/o.Mr.K.Dhakshnamoorthy, No. 4-838, 4^th Block, J.J. Nagar, Mugappair West, Chennai - 600 037.

¶12

¶13

Mr.K.Dhakshnamoorthy, (PAN No.AUJPD7691M) S/o.Mr.V.Kumar, No. 4/950, Dr.J.J. Nagar, West Block – 4, Mugappair West, Chennai - 600 037. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Sathyiyanarayanan. Defendant : Exparte.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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. 61,47,682.42 due in the Credit facilities of Secured Over Draft and Hypothecation of Machinery Loan availed by the defendants.

¶16

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs. 35,50,000/- was availed by 1^st defendant, a partnership firm for which defendants 2, 3 and 4 stood as guarantors. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties. It is also stated that secured overdraft facility which was originally sanctioned for Rs.20,00,000/- was subsequently enhanced to Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to

¶20

file this Application.

¶21

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 21.02.2023.

¶22

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs. A1 to A 29.

¶23

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶24

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶25

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are decided together

¶27

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 TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) TA No.141 of 2022 stands allowed

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.61,47,682.42 (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Forty Seven Thousands Six Hundreds Eighty Two and Forty Two Paisa only) with future and pendentelite interest @12.75% p.a. on

¶31

¶32

Rs.46,48,001.34 and @12.10% p.a. on Rs.14,99,681.08 with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA .

¶33

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶34

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

¶35

v) 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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 1^st day of February, 2024)

¶39

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

¶40

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. M/s. Prithvi Engineering Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. M/s. Prithvi Engineering Industries

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

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari

Bank of India versus M/S Yalla Industrial Enterprises

State Bank of India versus R.Virupaksha

M/s Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited Limited versus Kasim Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd.