Allowed

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Aadhi Cashews Foods

DRT19 Mar 2024TA/28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited for a recovery certificate seeking ₹6.57 crore with future and pendentelite interest from the defendants jointly and severally.

What did the court decide?

Issue of recovery certificate permitting recovery of ₹6.57 crore plus future and pendentelite interest at 14% p.a. from defendants jointly and severally.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Aadhi Cashews Foods — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 19^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA.No.28 of 2022

¶6

(Old OA.No.57/2021 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶7

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, Represented by its Chief Manager, Panruti Branch, No.71, Chennai Salai, Panruti – 607 106. Cuddalore District. IFSC CODE : TMBL0000195.

¶8

… Applicant.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.Aadhi Cashews Foods, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.R.Adhikesavan, H-Z-1/417, East Street, Yasodha Illam, Nadukuppam, Panruti – 607 106. PAN No.AIHPA4476F.

¶11

Mr.R.Adhikesavan, S/o.Mr. Rangan, H-Z-1/417, East Street, Yasodha Illam, Nadukuppam, Panruti – 607 106. PAN No.AIHPA4476F.

¶12

Mrs.A.Shanthi, W/o.Mr.R.Adhikesavan, H-Z-1/417, East Street, Yasodha Illam, Nadukuppam, Panruti – 607 106.

¶13

… Defendants.

¶14

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Sethuraman. Defendants : Exparte.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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.6,57,93,589.01 due in Cash Credit account and FITL account availed by the defendants.

¶18

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant proprietary concern, represented by its proprietor, 2^nd defendant availed cash credit limit since 2011 and the same was revised/renewed/enhanced from time to time and last such on 31.07.2019 for Rs.5,00,00,000/- and Funded Interest Term Loan of Rs.70,00,000/-. The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants stood as guarantors for the said loans. It is further stated that the said facilities were secured by mortgage of ‘B’ schedule mentioned properties and by hypothecation of ‘A’ schedule mentioned assets.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to

¶23

file this Application.

¶24

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 23.06.2022.

¶25

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A82.

¶26

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶27

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶28

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are decided together.

¶30

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. During the pendency of the TA, the applicant has filed a part satisfaction memo stating that the item nos.3 and 6 of ‘B’ schedule mentioned properties were sold under SARFAESI Act and realized a sum of Rs.23,10,000/- and the same is recorded. Since the claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @14% p.a. (simple).

¶31

¶32

In view of the above

¶33

i) TA No.28/2022 stands allowed.

¶34

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.6,57,93,589.01 (Rupees Six Crores Fifty Seven Lakhs Ninety Three Thousands Five Hundred Eighty Nine and Paise One only) with future and pendentelite interest @14% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets and by sale of ‘A’ schedule mentioned hypothecated assets and ‘B’ schedule mentioned mortgaged properties other than that are sold during the pendency of the TA after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA including the amount of part satisfaction.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 19^th day of March, 2024)

¶41

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

¶42

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Aadhi Cashews Foods

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Aadhi Cashews Foods

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Karunakaran

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar

Union Bank of India versus Mr K Ramalingam and Fifty Others

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased)

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises