Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s.C.K.Traders

DRT20 Feb 2024TA/233/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by IDBI Bank Limited against M/s.C.K.Traders and Mr.K.Manigandan. The court found the bank's evidence uncontroverted as defendants filed no specific denial or substantive defense evidence. The tribunal directed the recovery of the principal amount along with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to recover Rs. 74,04,477/- with future interest at 10% p.a. from filing date; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s.C.K.Traders — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT CHENNAI Dated this 20^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No.233 of 2023 (Old OA No.717/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

IDBI Bank Limited, Cuddalore Branch, 14-B, Bethal Towers, Pondy Main Road, Alpet, Cuddalore – 607 001. Represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶5

… Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s.C.K.Traders,

¶8

A sole Proprietary concern represented by its proprietor, Mr.K.Manigandan,

¶9

160/3A, Alapakkam Main Road, Kullanchavadi PO, Kurinjipadi Tk., Cuddalore Dist. - 607 301.

¶10

Mr.K.Manigandan, S/o.Mr.C.Kaliyamoorthy, # 143, North Street, Sammattikuppam, Kurinjipadi, Tamil Nadu. Cuddalore - 607 301. … Defendants

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. E.Vijayaraghavan. Counsel for Defendants : M/s. R.Rajesh Vivekanandhan.

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.74,04,477/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants.

¶15

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶16

The 1^st defendant proprietary concern represented by its proprietor 2^nd defendant approached the applicant for finance against Warehouse receipt for demand loan for a sum of Rs.78,80,000/-.

¶17

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

¶18

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendants had hypothecated the stocks commodity as security for the credit facility.

¶19

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 the same being declared as NPA on 16.08.2018.

¶20

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the

¶21

¶22

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 on 21.08.2018 caused to issue a letter of recall of credit facilities.

¶23

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 TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost. The applicant submits that the 2^nd defendant who is the proprietor of 1^st defendant had not provided adequate security for the commodities and also the commodities stored in the godown to the tune of 24 MT were moved without the knowledge of applicant hence the applicant bank has lodged a police complaint. It is further submitted that the balance of commodities available in the godown after burglary and theft were sold on 08.05.2019 in public auction for Rs.1,34,784/- and the same is credited in the loan account of 1^st defendant.

¶24

The defendants had filed a reply statement contending that the commodities bought and stored in warehouse could not be sold, resulted loss to the defendant. It is also contended that the bank had

¶25

unilaterally sold the stock without any notice and the said sale was at

¶26

¶27

low price, which resulted huge loss to the defendant. It is also stated

¶28

that blank documents were obtained at the time of sanction and the said documents cannot be used against the defendant. The defendant is also disputing the quantum of claim. However, it is to be noted that apart from the general denial no specific denial of the claim is put forth by the defendant.

¶29

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 A20 and got the same marked in evidence. No defense evidence was let in by the defendants even though the defendants filed

¶30

their counter proof affidavit the same was only reiteration of the general denial as made in reply statement.

¶31

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA 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 TA claim? ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed, as no contra evidence is available from the side of the defendants. Even though the written statement and counter proof affidavit is filed, no evidence supporting the same is adduced. Nor any specific denial is made as to the facts. 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 TA 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 credit facility availed is for the purpose of demand loan pendentelite and future interest is awarded 10% p.a. (simple) especially as the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate.

¶36

In view of the findings as entered above:

¶37

i) TA No.233/2023 stands allowed.

¶38

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 74,04,477/(Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Seven only) with future and pendentelite interest

¶39

¶40

@10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants personally and also by proceeding against their properties after giving credit to all

¶41

the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day of February, 2024)

¶47

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

¶48

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s.C.K.Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s.C.K.Traders

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 Overseas Bank versus M.Rajesh Kumar

State Bank of India, versus Mr.S.Syed Ghouse

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam

Idbi Bank versus Sangeetha

Bank of Baroda versus Balasubramanian D

Indian Overseas Bank versus Bhuvaneswari