Allowed

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Pethanatchi Dhall Mill

DRT19 Mar 2024TA/640/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DTI allowed a Section 19(1) application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank against borrowers defaulting on an unsecured business loan. The court, finding evidence un-rebutted, awarded a recovery certificate for the principal amount with future and pendentelite interest at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.23,10,848.29 with future and pendentelite interest at 8% p.a. simple interest.

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Pethanatchi Dhall Mill — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 19^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.640 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.436/2018 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., No.185, 2^nd Floor, Mount Road, Anna Salai,, Chennai – 600 006. PAN No:AAACK4409J, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Pethanatchi Dhall Mill, Represented by its Partners, Mr.Uvaraj Rajendran & Mr.R.Balaji, No.81/4, Senniamman Koil Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

¶9

Mr.Uvaraj Rajendran, No.16, Velayutham Nagar, 2^nd Street, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019.

¶10

Mr.R.Balaji,

¶11

No.16, Velayutham Nagar, 2^nd Street, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019.

¶12

… Defendants.

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.T.K.M.Sai Krishnan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.23,10,848.29 due in Unsecured Business Instalment Loan availed by the defendants from the erstwhile Deutsche Bank.

¶17

The Applicant contends that the defendants availed Unsecured Business Instalment Loan of Rs.24,00,000/-.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 01.05.2019.

¶21

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A10.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶23

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶24

¶25

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are decided together.

¶27

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 @8% p.a. (simple).

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) TA No.640/2022 stands allowed.

¶30

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.23,10,848.29 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ten Thousands Eight Hundred Forty Eight and Paise Twenty Nine only)with future and pendentelite interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶31

¶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

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 7^th day of March, 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Pethanatchi Dhall Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Pethanatchi Dhall Mill

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

Idbi Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Karunakaran

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mr. S. Sridharan S/o Mutthaiya Sankara Subbuthevar

Union Bank of India versus Mr K Ramalingam and Fifty Others

SBI versus Suvaikin Alexander

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s.Jayashree Enterprises