Allowed

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), v. M/s.Sri Krishna Saw Mills

DRT19 Mar 2024TA/346/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for a Recovery Certificate. The court held the evidence un-rebutted and awarded recovery of the admitted debt from the proprietor and guarantors, limited to their respective inherited estates, plus future interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 35,22,821/- plus future and pendentelite interest at 10% p.a. until realization.

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), versus M/s.Sri… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 19^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.346 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.390/2020 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Arni Road Branch, Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager, No.16, Arni Road, Kosapet, Vellore - 632 001.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.Sri Krishna Saw Mills, Represented by its Proprietor, C.V.Krishnamoorthy, Wood Timber & Tiles Merchant, No.162, Vallimalai Road, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore – 632 007. PAN No.APCPK8563M.

¶9

Mr.Boobalan, S/o.C.V.Krishnamoorthy, No.162, Vallimalai Road, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore – 632 007.

¶10

Mr.Langeswara Prabhu, S/o.Mr.Munusamy, No.71/15, Chitoor Road, Senguttai, Katpadi, Vellore – 632 007.

¶11

¶12

Mrs.K.Kasthuri, W/o.C.V.Krishnamoorthy, No.162, Vallimalai Road, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore – 632 007.

¶13

Mrs.K.Vijaya, W/o.C.V.Krishnamoorthy, No.162, Vallimalai Road, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore – 632 007.

¶14

Mrs.M.Thilagavathy, W/o.Mr.Moorthy, Veppamara Rathchai Street, Chinna Varikkam, Vellore – 635 811.

¶15

Mrs.S.Dhanalakshmi, W/o.Mr.Saravanan, No.1, Saraswathi Nagar, Tharapadavedu, Old Katpadi, Vellore – 632 007.

¶16

Mrs.S.Parimala, W/o.Mr.Sundaresan, No.29, Ponnusami Gounder Street, Pallikuppam, Katpadi, Vellore – 632 007.

¶17

Mrs.K.Valli, W/o.Mr.Karthikeyan, No.2/178, Alamara Street, Keezh Aalathur, Vellore – 632 803.

¶18

Mrs.U.Jothilakshmi, W/o.Mr.Udayakumar, No.1, S Papparapatti Kallavi, Soolakarai, Krishnagiri – 635 304.

¶19

¶20

Mr.Gopinath,

¶21

S/o.C.V.Krishnamoorthy, No.162, Vallimalai Road, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore – 632 007.

¶22

Mr.Subash, S/o.C.V.Krishnamoorthy, No.162, Vallimalai Road, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore – 632 007. … Defendants.

¶23

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.V.Subramanian Associatez. 1^st Defendant : Deceased. Defendants 2,3,5,11,12 : Exparte. Counsel for Defendants 4 & 6 to 10 : M/s.G.Nirmala.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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.35,22,821/- due in the SOD and OSD Loans availed by the defendants.

¶26

The Applicant contends that Mr.C.V.Krishnamoorthy during his life time representing the 1^st defendant, proprietorship concern availed OCC limit for Rs.10,00,000/- and SOD of Rs.20,00,000/- for which 3^rd defendant stood as guarantors. Also, Mr.C.V.Krishnamoorthy representing 1^st defendant proprietary concern availed OSL of Rs.2,00,000/- for which 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor. It is stated

¶27

¶28

that the said facilities were secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶29

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

¶30

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 the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶31

The defendants 4, 6, 10 filed reply statement contending that 5^th defendant had illicit relation with late C.V.Krishnamoorthy and after his death defendants 2, 5, 11 and 12 had chased 4^th defendant away from home. It is also stated that a suit for partition is also filed before the Civil Court as O.S.116/2019 and the same is pending and 8^th defendant filed her reply statement taking the verbatim reproduction of reply statement of defendants 4, 6 and 10.

¶32

Summons was taken out and even though vakalat was filed by defendants 4 and 6 to 10, the reply statement was filed by defendants 4, 6, 10 and 8^th defendants only. Hence, other defendants were set exparte on 19.09.2022.

¶33

¶34

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in

¶35

confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A47.

¶36

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶37

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶38

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶39

Both these issues are decided together.

¶40

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted as no contra evidence is available from the side of the defendants 4, 6, 8 and 10. Even though the written statement is filed, no documents supporting the same is adduced or any serious dispute is raised in respect of documents relied by the applicant and hence the evidence is proved. There is no dispute as to the liability and defaults raised in the reply statement. 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. However the liability of defendants 4 to 12 is limited to the extent of assets inherited from Mr.C.V.Krishnamoorthy. The contentions raised in the reply statement, even if to be accepted have no bearing as to the subject matter in issue as the claim against said defendants is limited to the extent of estate they had inherited from the deceased borrower. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no

¶41

¶42

capitalization of penal interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @10% p.a. (simple).

¶43

In view of the above

¶44

i) TA No.346/2023 stands allowed.

¶45

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.35,22,821/(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Two Thousands Eight Hundred and Twenty One only) out of which an amount of Rs.32,29,690/- is to be recovered from the 3^rd defendant personally and his assets and also by proceeding against the estate of 1^st defendant and an amount of Rs.2,93,131/- is to be recovered from the 2^nd defendant personally and his assets and also by proceeding against the estate of 1^st defendant with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization including the sale of schedule mentioned mortgaged properties, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA. However, the liability of defendants 4 to 12 is limited

¶46

to the extent of assets inherited from late Mr.C.V.Krishnamoorthy.

¶47

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), v. M/s.Sri Krishna Saw Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), v. M/s.Sri Krishna Saw Mills

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

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