Allowed

Syndicate Bank v. Sanswe Dairy and Two Others

DRT21 Mar 2024TA/372/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant Bank claimed recovery for unpaid loans totaling over Rs. 5.05 crores. Court found evidence un-rebutted and proved the claim. Recovery certificate issued for principal, interest, and sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 5,05,63,033.62 with future interest; leave to sell mortgaged properties; defendants personally liable for shortfall.

Syndicate Bank versus Sanswe Dairy and Two Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 21^st day ofMarch, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.372of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.210/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Canara Bank Erstwhile Syndicate Bank Egmore Branch No. 16, Police Commissioner Office Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 …Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s. Sanswe Dairy, Rep. by its Proprietor Mrs. Maria Sigamony Helma Joyce, No. 186, F2 – Star Crystal, VGP Gandhi Steet, Uthandi Chennai - 119

¶8

Mrs. Maria Sigamony Helma Joyce, W/o. Jayakumar, Flat No. 1501, Green Wood Tower, Hiranandhini Upscale, Egattur, OMR, Chennai

¶9

R. Jayakumar S/o. S. Raghunathan, Flat No. 1501, Green Wood Tower, Hiranandhini Upscale, Egattur, OMR, Chennai ...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.V. Suthakar Defendants : Exparte ……

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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 a total sum of Rs.5,05,63,033.62Pdue underthe 3 credit facilities i.e. Rs. 1,51,81,929.89P under Working Capital A/c, Rs. 24,43,601.76/-c under Term Loan – I A/c and Rs.

¶14

3,23,37,501.97PTerm Loan – II A/c along with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶15

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

¶16

The Applicant Bank contends that3 credit facilities i.e. a Working Capital Loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, Term Loan – I of Rs. 25,00,000/and Term Loan – II of Rs. 2,33,88,000/-were availed by the 2^nd Defendant – Proprietor on behalf of the 1^st Defendant – Proprietorship Concernfrom erstwhile Syndicate Bank which later got amalgamated with the Applicant Bank. The 3^rd Defendant stood as the Guarantor for the Two Term Loans. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by hypothecation of schedule A mentioned assets and mortgageof schedule B and schedule C mentioned properties.

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

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 and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendants pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶20

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on 04.03.2020.

¶21

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A21.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶23

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

¶24

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, which is on the higher side,prayer formonthly restsis declined.

¶29

In view of the above:

¶30

i. TA. No: 372of 2022 stands allowed.

¶31

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.5,05,63,033.62/-(Rupees Five Crores Five Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Thirty Three and Sixty Two PaiseOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @11.25%p.a. (simple) on Rs. 1,57,81,929.89P from defendants 1 and 2 jointly, severally and personally and @11.25% p.a. (simple) Rs. 24,43,601.76P and @12.5% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 3,23,37,501.97P from the defendants 1 to 3 jointly, severally and personally from the date of filing of the TA till realization and also proceeding against and selling the respective schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶32

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, Defendant 2 is personally liable for all such amounts due whereas

¶33

¶34

3^rd defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due in Term Loan I and Term Loan II.

¶35

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 account of the defendants.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 21^st day ofMarch, 2024)

¶41

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

¶42

Syndicate Bank v. Sanswe Dairy and Two Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syndicate Bank v. Sanswe Dairy and Two Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Agrubber Industtry

Bank of India versus Durga Granites

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Balaji Enterprises

Canara Bank versus R Dhandapani and Two Others

Canara Bank versus M/s. Ayisha Bag House Footwear