Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/s. Surya Ex-Im Corporation

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/332/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act for a recovery certificate of approximately Rs. 1.27 crore. The court held the evidence un-rebutted and directed recovery from respondents jointly and severally.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 1,27,47,793/- with future interest at 15.15% p.a.; respondents jointly and severally liable.

Indian Bank versus M/s. Surya Ex-Im Corporation — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.332of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.314/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Indian Bank

¶7

Stressed Assets Management Branch, 2^nd Floor, Zonal Office Building, 55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s. Surya Ex-Im Corporation Registered Office, Flat No. 2, Radhika Apartment, 5/625, VengaivasalVignarajapuram, Chennai – 600 064

¶11

Mr. A. Kumar, No. 21, Isha Signature Villa, Jalladayanpet, Perumbakkam, Chennai – 600 100

¶12

Mr. S. Desappan S/o. Mr. Senniappan No. 11, Pandithakollapuri Nagar, Moolakothalam, Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 021

¶13

...Defendants

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Raj and Raj Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.1,27,47,793/-due under the Open Cash Credit A/c along with future interest and costs and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶18

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

¶19

The Applicant Bank contends thatan Open Cash Credit facility of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was availed by the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants – Partners on behalf of 1^st Defendant – Partnership Firm for which the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants stood as Guarantors.It is also stated that the credit facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.It is also stated that the credit facility was renewed by reducing the limit to 95 Lakhs.

¶20

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution

¶21

of necessary loan documents by the defendants, obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶22

¶23

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amounts, the defendants failed in compliance of the same. It is also stated that all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendants pay back the balance due amounts failed and the Applicant Bank is forced to file this Application.

¶24

Summons was taken out and though the defendants entered appearance and filed reply statement, failed to file CPA, subsequently, hence, defendants were set exparte on06.03.2024.

¶25

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A18.

¶26

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶27

i. Whether the Applicant Bank had proved the TA claim?

¶28

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are decided together.

¶30

The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank is found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal

¶31

¶32

interest. Since, the TA claim has been arrived at by calculating

¶33

interest at agreed rate, prayer for monthly rests is declined.

¶34

In view of the above:

¶35

i. TA. No: 332of 2023 stands allowed.

¶36

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.1,27,47,793/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Three Only/)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 15.15% p.a. (simple)from date of filing of the TA till realization fromthe defendants jointly and severally and also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶37

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants are personallyliable for all such amounts due.

¶38

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan accounts of the defendant.

¶39

v. A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶40

¶41

vi. Applicant Bank 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.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶43

terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT

¶44

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶45

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this26^th day of March, 2024)

¶46

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

¶47

Indian Bank v. M/s. Surya Ex-Im Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/s. Surya Ex-Im Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh

State Bank of India versus Cm Atheequr Rahman Co.

State Bank of India versus P. Kaviyarasan

Indian Bank versus M/s. Balaji Enterprises