Allowed

The Federal Branch Ltd. v. Mrs. Divya T.

DRT20 Mar 2024TA/695/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Recovery of Debts Tribunal order, the Court admissible the Applicant Bank's evidence un-opposed, found the claim admissible and within limitation, and permitted recovery of the claimed amount with future interest at an agreed rate, issuing a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issued a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 59,86,378/- with future interest at 10.35% p.a. from the date of filing, recoverable jointly and severally from the defendants.

The Federal Branch Ltd. versus Mrs. Divya T. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 20^th day of March, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.695 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.415/2018-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

The Federal Branch Ltd. Ranipet Branch Ranipet …Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mrs. Diya T. W/o. Mr. Raj Kamal No.9, Phase 1 A, May Flower, Karnabut, Vellore District – 632 519

¶8

Mr. P. Vijayakumar S/o. Mr. Paramasivam No. 44/31, Reddiappa Mudali Street, Kosapet, Vellore – 632 001

¶9

M/s. National Collateral Management Services Ltd, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Gayatri Towers, No. 954, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 051 ...Defendants

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.V. Murlidhar Defendants : Exparte

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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 a total sum of Rs.59,86,378/-due under the 5 Warehouse Receipt Loan Accountsalong with future interest and costs.

¶14

The above Original Application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶15

The Applicant Bank contends thata Cash Credit facility of Rs. 50,00,000/- was availed by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants.The 3^rd defendant had in pursuant to service agreement for providing collateral Management service for Warehouses , had agreed that they will be responsible for the commodities stored in subject to natural loss.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

make the defendants pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.It is also stated that the 3^rd defendant being the custodian of goods failed in compliance of the Agreement and had issued warehouse receipts without verification leading to failure in preservation of the stocks pledged with the Applicant Bank and is therefore liable.

¶20

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

¶21

During the pendency of the TA, the applicant filed a part satisfaction memo stating that the 3^rd Defendant who is exparte had remitted a sum of Rs.44,50,464/- and the same was recorded. With this payment, the Applicant Bank had withdrawn the claim against the 3^rd Defendant.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶23

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

¶24

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

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 the TA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank is found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim

¶27

¶28

is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, prayer for yearly& monthlyrests and penal interest is declined.

¶29

In view of the above:

¶30

i. TA. No: 695of 2023 stands allowed.

¶31

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.59,86,378/-(Rupees Fifty NineLakhs Eighty SixThousand Three Hundred and Seventy EightOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 10.35% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severallyand their assets after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA including the amount of part satisfaction.

¶32

iii. It is made clear that the defendantsD1 and D2 are personally liable for all such amounts due in the Loan accounts.

¶33

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

¶34

v. 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.

¶35

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this20^th day ofMarch, 2024)

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(T. RAJESH)

¶41

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶42

The Federal Branch Ltd. v. Mrs. Divya T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Federal Branch Ltd. v. Mrs. Divya T.

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

Bank of India versus Durga Granites

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