Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. Mr.Manimaran

DRT20 Feb 2024TA/362/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of an outstanding loan of approximately Rs. 36 lakhs along with future interest from the defendant borrower, noting that the defendant failed to adduce evidence to rebut the bank's claim.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.36,08,707/- with future interest @10% p.a. and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr.Manimaran — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT CHENNAI Dated this 20^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No.362 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA No.718/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

IDBI Bank Limited, Cuddalore Branch, 14-B, Bethal Towers, Pondy Main Road, Alpet, Cuddalore – 607 001. Represented by its Authorized Officer. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr.Manimaran, S/o.Mr.Manoharan, 432, Main Road, Marungur Post, Marungur, Cuddalore - 607 103. … Defendant

¶8

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. E.Vijayaraghavan. Counsel for Defendants : M/s. R.Rajesh Vivekanandhan.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery

¶11

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.36,08,707/- with

¶12

further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the

¶13

same to be recovered from the defendant.

¶14

¶15

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶16

The defendant approached the applicant for demand loan for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and even though he executed documents for the said amount, the defendant got disbursed credit facility to the tune of Rs.32,03,200/-.

¶17

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

¶18

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the defendant had hypothecated the stocks commodity as security for the credit facility.

¶19

Even though the defendant had obliged himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, he failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 29.01.2019.

¶20

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting him to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendant to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated requests, the applicant had on 21.09.2018 caused to issue a letter of recall of credit facilities.

¶21

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost. The applicant sold the commodities stored in the Warehouse on 08.05.2019 in public auction for Rs.2,02,575/- and the same is credited in the loan account of defendant.

¶23

The defendant had filed a reply statement contending that the commodities bought and stored in warehouse could not be sold, resulted loss to the defendant. It is also contended that the bank had unilaterally sold the stock without any notice and the said sale was at low price, which resulted huge loss to the defendant. It is also stated that blank documents were obtained at the time of sanction and the said documents cannot be used against the defendant. The defendant is also disputing the quantum of claim. However, it is to be noted that apart from the general denial no specific denial of the claim is put forth by the defendant.

¶24

¶25

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 A12 and got the same marked in evidence. No defense evidence was let in by the defendant even though the defendant filed their counter proof affidavit, the same was only reiteration of the general denial as made in reply statement.

¶26

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶27

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim? ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed, as no contra evidence is available from the side of the defendant. Even though the written statement and counter proof affidavit is filed, no evidence supporting the same is adduced. Nor any specific denial is made as to the facts. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement

¶30

¶31

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 defendant and his assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit facility availed is for the purpose of demand loan pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 10% p.a. (simple) especially as the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate.

¶32

In view of the findings as entered above:

¶33

i) TA No.362/2022 stands allowed.

¶34

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.36,08,707/(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven only) with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendant personally and also by proceeding against his properties after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶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

¶37

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.

¶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 20^th day of February, 2024)

¶41

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

¶42

Idbi Bank Limited v. Mr.Manimaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. Mr.Manimaran

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M.Rajesh Kumar

State Bank of India, versus Mr.S.Syed Ghouse

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam

Idbi Bank versus Sangeetha

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s.C.K.Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Balasubramanian D