Allowed

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. Ms Vasanthamrice Mundy

DRT7 Feb 2024TA/345/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of dues under the RDB Act. The applicant, an ARC, claimed recovery of approximately Rs. 2.58 crore along with interest from the original borrower and guarantor who defaulted on a bank loan. The petition was granted ex-parte due to non-appearance of defendants.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 2,58,41,581 plus 12% p.a. simple interest; authorized sale of mortgaged properties; issued Recovery Certificate; awarded costs.

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 7^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.345 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.449/2020–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

M/s.Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, (U74140DL2013PTC259641), Registered office at Caddie Commercial Tower, Regus Business Centre, 5^th Floor, Aerocity (Dial), New Delhi -110 037. Corporate Office at 5^th Floor, Plot No.137, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana 122 002. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.Vasantham Rice Mundy, (PAN No.AEFPT5480E), Plot No.3300/1A4, KRM Complex, Shanthi Nagar, Near Anna Nagar Bus Stop, N.K.Road, Thanjavur – 6.

¶9

2. Mr.M.Thirunavukuarasu,

¶10

(PAN No.AEFPT5480E), Proprietor of M/s.Vasantham Rice Mundy, S/o.Mr.Mariyappan, Plot No.3300/1A4, KRM Complex, Shanthi Nagar, Near Anna Nagar Bus Stop, N.K.Road, Thanjavur – 6.

¶11

¶12

Mrs.T.Kanimozhi, W/o.Mr.M.Thirunavukuarasu, Plot No.145, G1, Parisutham Nagar 5^th Cross, Thanjavur District. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Sathiyanarayanan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The above Transfer Application is filed Under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.2,58,41,581/- with further interest from the date of filing of TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants 1 and 3 jointly are severally and also by sale of mortgaged properties.

¶15

The above Original Application is filed before the DRT-I, Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶16

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶17

The 1^st defendant represented by the proprietor, 2^nd defendant being the borrower and 3^rd defendant being the guarantor had applied for and availed an Open Cash Credit facility of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Indian Bank.

¶18

¶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

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 2^nd defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties.

¶21

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 27.09.2015.

¶22

Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the Indian Bank caused to issue a recall notice dated 23.08.2018 requiring repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment. The applicant by virtue of Assignment agreement dated 23.07.2019 got assigned the said debt and security Interest from Indian Bank in accordance with section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, there by entitled to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶24

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 25.11.2021.

¶25

¶26

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 A14 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶27

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim?

¶30

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as the defendants failed to enter appearance. 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 TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at

¶33

¶34

agreed rate; which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future

¶35

interest is awarded at 12% p.a. (simple).

¶36

In view of the findings as entered above.

¶37

i) TA No.345 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶38

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.2,58,41,581/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs Forty One Thousands Five Hundred and Eighty One only) with future and pendentelate interest @12% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realisation from the defendants and their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶39

iii) 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.

¶40

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms.

¶41

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 7^th day of February, 2024)

¶46

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

¶47

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. Ms Vasanthamrice Mundy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. Ms Vasanthamrice Mundy

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

M/s.Canara Bank, versus Mr.M.Ramesh

Bank of India versus J. Selvakannan

Canara Bank versus M/s. Arv Wash Tech

Karur Vysya Bank versus Mrs. Bhavani S.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Karthick

Canara Bank versus M/s. India Trust