The Tribunal allowed the application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 33,65,198/- with 10% simple interest against the defendant, rejecting defenses regarding blank documents and holding the bank's claim established.
Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 33,65,198/- plus 10% simple interest from date of filing till realization.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 26th day of March, 2024
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No.207 of 2023
(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.720 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.207 of 2023)
IDBI Bank Limited Cuddalore Branch 14-B, Bethal Towers Pondy Main Road, Alpet Cuddalore – 607 001 Represented by its Authorised Officer ….Applicant
Versus
Mr. D. Santhoshkumar S/o Mr. Duraisamattiyar No.38/2, East Street, Samattikuppam Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore – 607 301 ….Defendant
Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s E. Vijayaraghavan Counsel for Defendants : M/s L. Thiyagaiya
FINAL ORDER
70% of the value of the commodity stored, as a Warehouse Receipt Based
1
Financing on 5.9.2017 and the applicant vide sanction letter dated 8.9.2017 sanctioned a demand loan upto a limit of Rs.50,00,000/- based on Warehouse Receipt No.1621155 dated 6.9.2017. The defendant executed the documents on 7.9.2018 and 8.9.2017.
(b) It is stated that though the applicant sanctioned a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- the defendant availed only a sum of Rs.29,62,960/-.
(c) The defendant failed and neglected to make the remittances and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the sanction and hence the account was classified as NPA on 06.12.2018. The applicant also issued a recall notice dated 21.9.2018, the defendant did not come fowrad to clear the outstanding dues, hence the applicant is constrained to file this TA.
2
1. Whether the applicant bank has established its claim against the defendants? If so, for what amount?
2. Whether the applicant bank is entitled for pendent lite and future interest, if so, at what rate ?
Point No.1
Whether the applicant bank has established its claim against the defendants? If so, for what amount?
3
that the statement of accounts filed is proper and supported by appropriate certificate under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act and Information Technology Act and hence the amount claimed is wrong cannot be countenanced. It is further contended that the defendant though filed the reply statement, and Counter Proof Affidavit did not choose to adduce any rebuttal evidence.
others reported in MANU/DM/0025/2005 held in paragraph 8 that;
“8. The grant of loan as alleged by the Bank and defendant Nos.6 to 10 having signed a guarantee agreement is an admitted position. Their contention is that on 30th July, 1992, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 had sent blank letter of lien, demand note for grant of Rs.30 lacs to the Bank, which indeed, appears to be correct. However, it has to be pointed out that settled legal position is that the person who signs blank standard documents takes responsibility for the same and the plea of non est factum is not available to him”
Therefore, this defence taken by the defendant also fails.
4
Point No.2
Whether the applicant bank is entitled for pendent lite and future interest, if so, at what rate?
5
future interest is concerned, the contractual rate of interest may not be applied. It is to be stated that the claim of the applicant bank includes the rate of interest and other charges payable as per the contract. The Tribunal already held that the applicant bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the TA. As already stated, the Tribunal has awarded contractual rate of interest as claimed by the applicant bank till the date of filing the TA and in view of the fact that the subject loan being a Warehouse Loan against commodities deposited in the warehouse and the commodities have already been sold by the applicant and that the lending rate had considerably come down, the Tribunal is of the view that the defendants are entitled for a reduced rate of interest. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Tribunal is inclined to grant pendente lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. simple on the TA claim amount from the date of filing till the date of realization. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
6
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 26th day of March, 2024)
Sd/(T. RAJESH ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI
7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank has established its claim against the defendants and the quantum of the amount due?
Whether the applicant bank is entitled to pendent lite and future interest, and if so, at what rate?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs. Prabha K.MaheshwariApplied¶36
Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs. Prabha K.Maheshwari and others reported in MANU/DM/0025/2005
State Bank of India vs Sarath TextilesReferred¶44
II 2009 BC pg. 696
Central Bank of India – vs – N. RaveendraReferred¶44
2002 [1] SCC pg. 367 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
IDBI Bank Limited Cuddalore Branch
T. RAJESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
