Allowed

City Union Bank Ltd. v. M/s.Kingdom Dairy Farm

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for a Recovery Certificate. It held the evidence for the debt claim was un-rebutted and admissible. The court fixed future and pendentelite interest at 10% per annum simple and directed the issuance of the Recovery Certificate for the principal amount.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.3,60,70,187/- with future and pendentelite interest at 10% p.a. (simple) to be recovered from respondents jointly and severally.

City Union Bank Ltd. versus M/s.Kingdom Dairy Farm — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.588 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.218/2019 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

City Union Bank Ltd., Koranattu Karuppur Branch, Ishwar School Premises, Chennai Main Road, Koranattu Karuppur – 612 501. Thanjavur District.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s.Kingdom Dairy Farm, Represented by its Partners, No.281/1, Main Street, Oothukadu, Avoor, Valangiman Taluk, Tiruvarur District – 612 701.

¶10

Mr.P.Jaffar Sadik, S/o.Mr.Packeer Muhamed, No.4-5, East Street, Pandaravadai, Thanjavur District – 614 701.

¶11

Mr.Hadja Alavodine, S/o.Mr.Zeinoordeen, No.3, S.A Nagar, Kamaraj Salai, Karaikal – 609 602.

¶12

Mrs.J.Yasmin Banu, W/o.Mr.P.jaffar Sadik, No.4-5, East Street, Pandaravadai, Thanjavur District – 614 701.

¶13

¶14

C.Vijayakumar, S/o.Mr.Chinnathurai, No.3/97/A, North Street, Thiruvaikavur (P.O.), Papanasam Taluk – 612 301.

¶15

Mr.K.Chandramohan, S/o.Mr.Kaliyamoorthy, No.264, North Street, Kurichi. … Defendants.

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.Sivaraman. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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 Rs.3,60,70,187/- due in various loans availed by the defendants.

¶19

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant represented by 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as its partners availed (i) CUB OSL Term EMI-BR (501812080020896) of Rs.45,00,000/- (ii) CUB OSL Term EMI-BR (501812080020983) of Rs.30,00,000/- (iii) CUB OSL Term EMI-BR (501812080017413) of Rs.74,00,000/- (iv) CUB OSL Term EMI-BR (501812080017377) of Rs.20,00,000/- (v) Secured OD without DP (512120020007828) of Rs.75,00,000/- (vi)CUB Working Capital- TL –BR (501712070000571) of Rs.20,00,000/- (vii) Agri Term Loan – BR (501512050004639) of Rs.9,18,000/- to meet out their business

¶20

¶21

requirements. Apart from the above, defendants 2 and 5 availed OSL Term EMI (501812080037791) of Rs.20,00,000/- for which defendants 3, 4 and 6 stood as guarantors. Also defendants 2 and 4 availed (i) CUB Swayam Griha (501312030009671) of Rs.30,00,000/- and (ii) CUB OSL Term EMI – BR (501812080022998) of Rs.14,75,000/-. It is stated that the said facilities were secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties and also by hypothecation of movable properties.

¶22

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

¶23

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facilities 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.

¶24

Summons was taken out and as the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 6 failed to enter appearance they were set exparte on 28.08.2019. Even though defendants 3 and 5 entered appearance they did not file reply statement and subsequently, as there was no representation, they were set exparte on 13.12.2023.

¶25

¶26

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in

¶27

confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A109.

¶28

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶29

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶30

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are decided together.

¶32

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. During the pendency of the TA, the applicant has filed two part satisfaction memos stating that the item nos. 2 and 3 of ‘A’ schedule mentioned properties were sold and realized a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.32,10,000/- respectively and the same is recorded. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @ 10% p.a. (simple).

¶33

In view of the above

¶34

i) TA No.588/2022 stands allowed.

¶35

¶36

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. Rs.3,60,70,187/- (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Lakhs Seventy Thousands One Hundred and Eighty Seven only) out of which an amount of Rs.2,92,09,500/- from defendants 1 to 3 jointly, severally and personally and also from their assets, Rs.23,05,779/- from defendants 2 to 6 jointly, severally and personally and also from their assets and Rs.45,54,908/- from defendants 2 and 4 jointly, severally and personally and also from their assets all with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization and by sale of item no.1 of ‘A’ schedule mentioned property and also by sale of hypothecation of movable properties after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA including the amount of part satisfaction already recovered.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

City Union Bank Ltd. v. M/s.Kingdom Dairy Farm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Ltd. v. M/s.Kingdom Dairy Farm

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