Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Tamilian Educational Academy

DRT12 Feb 2024TA/287/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRTII allowed the applicant's application for recovery of debt. The court found the claim of Rs.18.66 crore proved and unperturbed, rejecting defense grounds on validity, stamping, limitation, and interest. Orders were passed for joint and several recovery and sale of properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.18,66,59,218.22 with interest @15.25% PA from filing date; sale of Schedule A and B properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s. Tamilian Educational Academy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.287 of 2023

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.341 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.287 of 2023)

¶6

Punjab National Bank Anna Nagar Branch U-10, 4^th Main Road Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 Represented by its Manager Mr. K.P. Arumuga Karthick …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Tamilian Educational Academy (A Society Registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860) No.6-1-60, Varadaraja Nagar, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh.

¶9

Dr. R. Venkataswamy, S/o. Mr.Ravoori Kanakaiah, No-9/18, RVS Nagar, Murukambattu, Tirupati Road, Chittoor—517127, Andhra Pradesh

¶10

Mr. R.V. Srinivas S/o. Dr. R. Venkataswamy No.9/18, RVS Nagar, Murukambattu, Tirupati Road, Chittoor - 517127, Andhra Pradesh

¶11

Dr. R. Allikeswari W/o. Dr. R.Venkataswamy No.9/18, RVS Nagar, Murukambattu, Tirupati Road, Chittoor—517127, Andhra Pradesh

¶12

Dr. R. Madhuri Gandhi D/o. R. Vekataswamy, D.No.6-7-619A, Sripuram Colony K T Road, Tirupathi-517501

¶13

Mr. R.V. Balaji

¶14

¶15

S/o. R.Venkataswamy D.No.6-7-619A, Sripuram Colony K T Road, Tirupathi-517501

¶16

Ms. R. Keethi Priya D/o. Mr. R. Venkataswamy No.9/18, RVS Nagar, Murukambattu, Tirupati Road, Chittoor – 517127 Andhra Pradesh

¶17

Mr. A.Murali Krishna S/o. A. Munirathnam, D.No.3-522, Karnal Street, Kalashsti, Andhra Pradesh

¶18

Mrs. R. Sumalatha D/o. R. Venkataswamy No.9/18, RVS Nagar, Murukambattu, Tirupati Road, Chittoor – 517127 Andhra Pradesh

¶19

M/s. Srinivasa Educational Academy (A society registered under the Societies Registration act 1860) RVS Nagar, Murukambattu, Tirupathi Road, Chittoor-517127, Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its President, Mr. R. Venkataswamy …Defendants Counsel for the Applicant : M/s R. Umasuthan & K. Bhaskar Defendants : Ex-parte

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.18,66,59,218.22p with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendant jointly and severally and also by sale of the Schedule A and B properties.

¶22

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶23

¶24

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:- the 1^st defendant had availed a term loan facilities for Rs.15,00,00,000/- which was sanctioned on 17.2.2016 the defendants 2 to 8 had extended deed of guarantee in favour of the applicant on 24.3.2016 and the defendants 2 to 10 extended personal guarantee on 31.3.2017.

¶25

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

¶26

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, defendant 1 and 10 4 had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule A and B properties respectively.

¶27

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 31.10.2017.

¶28

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even though no repayment was made despite repeated request the applicant had on 12.1.2018 issue a demand notice as per proceedings SARFAESI requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶29

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this OA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶30

¶31

Even as the defendants though entered appearance had and he 2^nd defendant had filed their reply statement, which was adopted by other defendants. It is contended that the mortgage is not a valid one. It is further stated that the 1^st defendant is a society registered under the Society Registration Act. The defendant also put forward the contention that the documents produced by the applicant are not stamped and are in admissible. Apart from the above a contention is raised that the claim is time barred and further that the interest claimed is compounded.

¶32

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A29 and got the same marked in evidence. No defense evidence was adduced no any counter proof affidavit is filed despite being given sufficient opportunities.

¶33

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contention as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The defendant did not represent continuously and could not be heard. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶34

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim?

¶35

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants apart from filing a written statement putting forth a general denial had not let in any evidence in support of their defense. The denial put forward

¶38

¶39

by the defendants in their written statement is not specific. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. 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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their/ his assets (including the scheduled property) the claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the facility is purely commercial the OA is to be allowed as claimed.

¶40

In view of the finding as entered above, the following order is passed: -

¶41

(a) TA No.287 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶42

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.18,66,59,218.22p being the total due amount with future and pendente lite interest @15.25% PA compounded with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severally and also by proceeding against their assets, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA .

¶43

(c) 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.

¶44

(d) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms.

¶45

¶46

(e) 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

¶47

of the order.

¶48

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this 12^th day of February, 2024)

¶49

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

¶50

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Tamilian Educational Academy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Tamilian Educational Academy

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

Canara Bank versus M/s.Subish Plastics

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. v. Pachamuthu

Bank of India versus Veeralakshmi

Hdfc Bank versus Kandaswamy Rajalakshmi

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Palkannan

Indian Bank versus Rare India Exim Pvt. Ltd.