Allowed

State Bank of India, v. Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited

DRT23 Feb 2024TA/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the appellant bank's application to issue a Recovery Certificate. Bank proved its claim of Rs.36.30 lakhs for sugarcane lending scheme, relieving first defendant per scheme and specifying individual recovery shares for remaining defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.36,30,581/- with future interest @10% p.a. and costs. Appellant permitted to realize costs within 7 days.

State Bank of India, versus Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 23^rd day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.59 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.188/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

State Bank of India, represented by Branch Manager, Kodavasal Branch, Kodavasal Tiruvarur District PIN 612601 .…Applicant Vs

¶7

Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director “Eldorado”, 5^th Floor 112, Uthamar Gandhi Salai Chennai 600 034.

¶8

V.Seethalaprasath 3/20, Jaina Street, Deepangudi, Kodavasal Tiruvarur District 612 603.

¶9

Subbulakshmi R, 1/12, Agraharam Sethinapuram, Tiruvidachery, Kodavasal Tiruvarur Dist.- 610107

¶10

Sibhi R, 2/806, East Street, Perumpannaiyur, Kodavasal-612603

¶11

Ramadoss S, 1/11A, Agraharam Sethinipuram, Kodavasal,

¶12

¶13

Thiruvarur District-610107

¶14

ThirisanguM , 33, Main Road, Thirucherai, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District-612605

¶15

Giriprasath N, 27/7, Pachaiyappa Street, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur district-612001

¶16

Sekar V, 2/57, West Street, Kappanamangalam, Kodavasal taluk, Tiruvarur District -612603

¶17

Shreyankumar V, Visaloor, Kumbkonam, Thanjavur District,

¶18

Sivakumar V , 249/2, Pattaveli street, Keelkudi, Nannilam, Tiruvarur -610105

¶19

Jayapal R , 1/148 South street, Thirukkannamangai, Kodavasal-610104

¶20

Soundararajan P , 2/99 ,MGR Nagar, Pavithramanickam, Thiruvarur-610104

¶21

Ulaganathan S , 1717/8/7, Madha kovil street, Nachiyarkovil, kumbakonam Tanjore-612602

¶22

¶23

Joseph rajkumarI , 2/806, East street, Perumpannaiyur, Kodavasal-612603

¶24

Tamilarasan R, 155, New street, Keelkudi, Nannilam , Tiruvarur District-610105

¶25

Kaliyamurthy T, 2/72, Throwpathiamanmkovil street, Sengalipuram ,Kodavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District-612604

¶26

Saravanan M, 117, Mothilal street, Kumbakonam, Tanjore District-612001

¶27

Kannaiyan P, 2/52A, West street Keelkudi, Nannilam Taluk, Tiruvarur District-610105

¶28

Pushpalatha M, Trowpathiamman Kovil Street, Sengalipuram Kodavasal-612604

¶29

Bhuvaneswari V, 3/11, Jaina street , DeepangudiKodavasal, Tiruvarur-612603

¶30

Govindaraj R, 3/453, SanthaveliVisaloor , Kumbakonam Taluk, Tanjore District-612804

¶31

¶32

Subramaniyan M, 1/81, East street, Engan kodavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District-612603

¶33

Kathiravan C, 3/449, SanthaveliVisaloor, Kumbakonam, Tanjore-612804

¶34

Yasodharan S, 3/20, Jaina street, DeepangudiKodavasal, Thiruvarur dt-612603

¶35

Senthilkumar D, 147, Udayarkovil Street, Thirucherai ,Kumbakonam-612605

¶36

Mathiyazhagan A, 343, AndiruppuThirucherai, Kumbakonam-612605

¶37

Balu P, 50, Selvasarangapani Street, Kumbakonam-612001

¶38

Govindarajan A , 3/459, SanthaveliVisaloor, Kumbakonam , Thanjavur-612804

¶39

Sripriya B, 50, Selvasarangapani Street, Kumbakonam-612001

¶40

Anandan G, 40, Middle Street , Kodavasal-612601

¶41

Sekar V , 2J/59, New Police Quarters,

¶42

¶43

NalurThirucherai , Kumbakonam-612605

¶44

EssaiselviS , 3/20 Jaina Street Deepangudi, Kodavasal, Thiruvarur District-612603 ...Defendants

¶45

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K. Chandrasekaran Counsel for Defendant D1 : M/s. Rahul Balaji Defendants : Exparte

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.36,30,581/- due in the credit facilities of Harvesting and Transportation Loan Scheme for financing harvesting and transportation of sugarcane availed by the defendants along with future interest and costs.

¶48

The Applicant Bank contends that the 1^st defendant, a Public Limited Company stood as a Corporate Guarantor andrequested for short Term loans to defendants 2 to 32i.e, to the registered team leaders for the purpose of financing harvesting and other related activities of Sugarcane harvest workers. The defendants 2 to 32 submitted their respective loan applications for short Term loan and the respective

¶49

¶50

credit facilities were sanctioned and disbursed pursuant to the execution of respective loan agreements by defendants 2 to 32.

¶51

Hence,according to the Applicant Bank, they had sanctioned Credit facilities to the tune of Rs.73,30,000/- to Defendants D2 to D32, for which the 1^st defendant had executed corporate guarantee on 07.07.2017, thereby making them jointly and severally liable for the due amounts.

¶52

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 amount failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶53

Summons was taken out and defendants D2 to D32 were called absent and set exparte on 30.06.2022.

¶54

Proceedings against Defendant D1 relinquished by Applicant Bank via memo dated 21.08.2023on account of the scheme of arrangement approved by the NLCT order dated 02.05.2022.

¶55

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exbs. A1 to A190.

¶56

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶57

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

¶58

¶59

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶60

Both these issues are decided together.

¶61

1. 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 theTA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank is to be found entitled for the TA claim. The TA 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, prayer for monthly rests is declined.

¶62

In view of the above:

¶63

i. TA. No: 59of 2023 stands allowed.

¶64

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.36,30,581/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty One Only/-)out of which an amount of,

¶65

i. Rs.3,58,488/- is to be recovered from defendant 2 ;

¶66

ii. Rs. 56,711/- is to be recovered from defendant 3;

¶67

iii. Rs. 1,26,328/- is to be recovered from defendant 4; iv. Rs. 80,409/- is to be recovered from defendant 5; v. Rs. 53,750/- is to be recovered from defendant 6;

¶68

vi. Rs. 1,42,091/- is to be recovered from defendant 7;

¶69

vii. Rs. 61,230/- is to be recovered from defendant 8;

¶70

¶71

viii. Rs. 48,967/- is to be recovered from defendant 9;

¶72

ix. Rs. 42,970/- is to be recovered from defendant 10;

¶73

x. Rs. 39,312/- is to be recovered from defendant 11;

¶74

xi. Rs. 8,604/- is to be recovered from defendant 12;

¶75

xii. Rs. 49,286/- is to be recovered from defendant 13;

¶76

xiii. Rs. 1,27,393/- is to be recovered from defendant 14; xiv. Rs. 30,720/- is to be recovered from defendant 15;

¶77

xv. Rs. 1,76,917/- is to be recovered from defendant 16;

¶78

xvi. Rs. 2,79,547/- is to be recovered from defendant 17;

¶79

xvii. Rs. 1,02,937/- is to be recovered from defendant 18;

¶80

xviii. Rs. 95,734/- is to be recovered from defendant 19;

¶81

xix. Rs. 1,23,783/- is to be recovered from defendant 20;

¶82

xx. Rs. 1,09,327/- is to be recovered from defendant 21;

¶83

xxi. Rs. 2,45,236/- is to be recovered from defendant 22;

¶84

xxii. Rs. 38,099/- is to be recovered from defendant 23;

¶85

xxiii. Rs. 61,612/- is to be recovered from defendant 24;

¶86

xxiv. Rs. 83,659/- is to be recovered from defendant 25; xxv. Rs. 2,06,168/- is to be recovered from defendant 26;

¶87

xxvi. Rs. 1,80,486/- is to be recovered from defendant 27;

¶88

xxvii. Rs. 16,757/- is to be recovered from defendant 28;

¶89

xxviii. Rs. 1,58,490/- is to be recovered from defendant 29;

¶90

¶91

xxix. Rs. 1,98,791/- is to be recovered from defendant 30; xxx. Rs. 2,25,100/- is to be recovered from defendant 31;

¶92

xxxi. Rs. 1,01,679/- is to be recovered from defendant 32;

¶93

all with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants personallyand their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by proceeding against the hypotheca.

¶94

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.

¶95

iv. 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.

¶96

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

¶97

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

¶98

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 23^rd day of February, 2024)

¶99

Sd/-

¶100

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

¶101

State Bank of India, v. Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India, v. Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited

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

State Bank of India versus S. Aravind Kumar

Canara Bank versus M/s Selakshan Contractors

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Navashakti Auto Fuels

Syed Faiyaz S a versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

M/s.City Union Bank Limited versus M/s.Sri Devi Arts

R S Sekar versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.