Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s Sai Ram Digitals

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/562/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for a recovery certificate under the RDB Act against defaulters of a CGTSME loan. Being un-rebutted, the claim was proved admissible, and a recovery order was issued with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 1,41,45,582 with future interest @ 10% simple p.a. from filing date till realization, recoverable jointly, severally, and personally from the respondents.

Canara Bank versus M/s Sai Ram Digitals — Insurance | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.562 of 2023

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.79 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.562 of 2023)

¶7

Canara Bank Egmore Branch, Erstwhile Syndicate Bank Rep. by its Chief Manager, MR.Santanu Kundu No.16, PCO Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008 … Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Sai Ram Digitals Rep. by its Propertrix Mrs. K Muthulakshmi, New No.100/1, Old No. 120/1, Nan Singanna Chetty Street Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 014

¶10

Mrs. K Muthulakshmi No. 65/27, Devarajan Street Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014 …Defendants Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s AGD Balakumar Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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. 1,41,45,582/- (Rupees One Crore Forty One Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Two only) due in CGTSME loan.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

The Applicant contents that a credit facilities of Rs. 4,77,000/- and Rs.52,00,000/- were availed by the 1^st defendant as Working Capital and Term Loan respectively from erstwhile syndicate bank which got amalgamated with applicant herein. The 1^st defendant is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor; the 2^nd defendant.

¶16

The Applicant further contents that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendant failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants including issuance of the lawyer notice dated 16.9.2020 failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶17

Summons was taken out and defendant though entered appearance failed in filing the reply statement and opportunity was closed on 22.7.2022.

¶18

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit confirming with the pleadings and got marked Ext A1 to A7.

¶19

Heard, the following issues arise for consideration: -

¶20

(i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶21

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶22

Both these issues are decided together.

¶23

The Applicant evidence remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove TA claim. Hence the Applicant is to be found entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no

¶24

¶25

capitalization of penal interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 10% simple.

¶26

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

¶27

(a) TA No. 562 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶28

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.1,41,45,582/(Rupees One Crore Forty One Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Two only) with future and pendente lite interest @ 10% simple P.A from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA/TA, from the defendants jointly, severally and personally against the 2^nd defendant and also by proceedings against his assets.

¶29

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

¶30

(d) 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.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶32

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 26^th day of March, 2024)

¶33

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

¶34

Canara Bank v. M/s Sai Ram Digitals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s Sai Ram Digitals

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

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh

State Bank of India versus Cm Atheequr Rahman Co.

State Bank of India versus P. Kaviyarasan

Indian Bank versus M/s. Balaji Enterprises