Allowed

Bank of India v. Durga Granites

DRT20 Mar 2024TA/584/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by the Bank of India for a recovery certificate against Durga Granites and its proprietor, V. Magadevan, citing un-rebutted evidence of non-repayment of a secured term loan.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.42,39,629/ with future and pendentelite interest @12% p.a. jointly, severally and personally from the defendants.

Bank of India versus Durga Granites — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 20^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.584 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.266/2020 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Bank of India

¶7

Represented by its Consituted Attorney Having Branch office at: 3/5, New Katpadi Road, Vellore 632 004

¶8

… Applicant. Vs.

¶9

Durga Granites, Represented by its proprietor, Mr. V. Magadevan, Having business at: Old No. 5/113, New No. 5/238, Virinjipuram Medu, Keelvilachur Village, Vaduganthangal Post, Katpadi Taluk Vellore 632 007

¶10

Mr. V. Magadevan, Son of G. Vemban, Old No. 5/113, New No. 5/238, Virinjipuram Medu, Keelvilachur Village, Vaduganthangal Post, Katpadi Taluk Vellore 632 007

¶11

… Defendants.

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.B. Deepak Narayanan Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶15

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery

¶16

¶17

Certificate for Rs.42,39,629/- due in Term Loan availed by the defendants.

¶18

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor 2^nd defendant availed Term Loan of Rs.21,85,000/-. It is further stated that the said facility was secured by hypothecation of movables.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶21

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 26.08.2022.

¶22

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A14.

¶23

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶24

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶25

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶26

¶27

Both these issues are decided together.

¶28

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. 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. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @12% p.a.(Simple).

¶29

In view of the above

¶30

i) TA No.584/2022 stands allowed.

¶31

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.42,39,629/(Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Nine only)with future and pendentelite interest @12% p.a. (simple) per annum from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets including the sale of hypothecated movables after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶32

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.

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day of March, 2024)

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(T. RAJESH)

¶39

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶40

Bank of India v. Durga Granites

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Durga Granites

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

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr.v.Ramaiah (Deceased)

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Agrubber Industtry

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s Vel and Co.