Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Vishnu Technologies

DRT27 Mar 2024TA/363/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allows the bank's application for issuance of a recovery certificate against a proprietary concern and two individual guarantors owing Rs. 39.32 Lakhs. The court held evidence un-rebutted and awarded recovery with interest at 12% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 39,31,921.21 with 12% p.a. simple interest on demand; recovery via personal liability and sale of mortgaged assets.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Vishnu Technologies — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.363 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.17 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.363 of 2022)

¶7

Canara Bank Ranipet Branch, No.17, Krishnagiri Trunk Road Ranipet - 632401 ….Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Vishnu Technologies A Proprietorship Concern No.125, MBT Road, Ranipet – 632 401 Walajapet Taluk, Vellore District Represented herein by its Proprietrix Mrs. Indira Kathiravan

¶10

Mrs. K. Indira, W/o. N.Kathiravan No.157, Pillayer Koil Street Neelakandarayapuram Ranipet, vellore District – 632 501

¶11

Mrs. S. Umarani W/o. Mr. L S Subramani No.4/6, Mettu Street, Lalapet Walaja Taluk, Vellore District …Defendants Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s R. Umasuthan Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

The Application is filed under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 39,31,921.21 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty One and Twenty One paisa only) due in the credit facility of Secured Over Draft availed by 1^st the defendant.

¶14

¶15

The above TA was originally filed before DRT-I and got transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶16

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs. 26,00,000/- was availed by the defendant a proprietary concern, represented by the 2^nd respondent; its proprietor and the 3^rd stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule properties belonged to the 3^rd defendant.

¶17

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility 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 including issuance of a demand notice dated 8.10.2018 failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶18

Summons was taken out and as the defendant filed their reply statement admitting the availment of the credit facility but at the same time contending that they were made to sign blank papers when availing the facility. The interest as claimed in the TA is also disputed by the defendant.

¶19

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Ext A1 to A21. Though sufficient opportunity was given, no counter proof affidavit was filed by the defendants.

¶20

Heard, the following issues arise for consideration: -

¶21

(a) Whether the Applicant had proved the OA claim?

¶22

(b) What orders are to be passed?

¶23

Both these issues are decided together.

¶24

¶25

The Applicant evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove TA claim. The defendants though filed a reply statement, the availment of credit facility is admitted. More over no defense evidence was let in support of the denial. Hence the Applicant is to be found entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, which though is on the higher side is not interfered with, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at a simple rate that too at reduced interest rate of 12% per annum simple.

¶26

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

¶27

(a) TA No.363 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶28

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.39,31,921.21p (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty One and Twenty One paisa only) with future and pendente ltte interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally and personally against defendants 2 and 3 and also by sale of the assets of the defendants including the sale of scheduled mentioned property after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA/TA.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

(d) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost

¶32

memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶33

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

¶34

19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶35

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 27^th day of March, 2024)

¶36

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

¶37

Canara Bank v. M/s. Vishnu Technologies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Vishnu Technologies

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 G. Edison

Bank of Baroda versus Jayakandan

State Bank of India versus Mr. S. Natarajan

State Bank of India versus Paramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri Vivekananda Builders

Canara Bank versus Mr. S. Pannerselvam