Allowed

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. M/s. Preethi Sago Industries

DRT1 Feb 2024TA/153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court found the applicant's evidence adequate and un-rebutted. While the principal debt and future interest at 10.65% were granted as penal interest was declined, a Recovery Certificate was issued for realizing Rs.1,12,82,279/- from the defendants and their assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.1,12,82,279/- with future interest at 10.65%; sale of schedule properties and other assets ordered for realization.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s. Preethi Sago… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 1^st day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.153 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.273/2020–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Pudukottai Branch, No.2738, East Main Street, KLKS Complex, Pudukottai – 622 001. IFSC Code is TMBL0000128. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s.Preethi Sago Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.Arunmozhi Varman, SF No.421/2, 421/6B, Odayalipatti, Kunnandarkoil Post, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. PIN : 622 502. PAN No.ANSPA8251C.

¶8

Mr.Arunmozhi Varman, D/o.Mr.Palanisamy, Proprietor : M/s.Preethi Sago Industries, SF No.421/2, 421/6B, Odayalipatti, Kunnandarkoil Post, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. PIN : 622 502.

¶9

Also at No.102, Mustakinathu Patti, Baganathan Village, (Via), Karur – 639 118. PAN No.ANSPA8251C.

¶10

¶11

Mrs.A.Saranya, W/o.Mr.Arunmozhi Varman, SF No.421/2, 421/6B, Odayalipatti, Kunnandarkoil Post, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. PIN : 622 502.

¶12

Also at No.102, Mustakinathu Patti, Baganathan Village, (Via), Karur – 639 118. PAN No.CTPPS7088L. … Defendants.

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.N.Chinnakrishnan. Defendants : 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.1,12,82,279/- due in the credit facility of one Over Draft and three Term Loans availed by the defendants.

¶16

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs.96,00,000/was availed by defendants 1 and 2 for which 3^rd defendant stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties belonged to D2 and D3 and also by hypothecation.

¶17

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 03.06.2022.

¶21

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A87.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶23

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶24

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together

¶26

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 TA claim. Hence, the Applicant is found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. However, prayer for penal interest is declined. It is also recorded that by selling Item No. I in schedule ‘B’, the bank had received a sum of Rs.35,81,462/- which was adjusted to two loan accounts.

¶27

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) TA No.153 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.1,12,82,279/- (Rupees One Crores Twelve Lakhs Eighty Two Thousands Two Hundred and Seventy Nine only) with future and pendentelite interest 10.65% (as penal interest is not granted) with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also including the amount recovered by selling Item No.I in schedule ‘B’ property.

¶31

iii) The rest of schedule properties 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. M/s. Preethi Sago Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. M/s. Preethi Sago 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.