Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/s.Mkr Stores

DRT7 Mar 2024TA/702/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's transferable assets application for a recovery certificate of Rs.23,79,361 with interest, finding the applicant has proved the loan claim un-rebutted by defendants who failed to provide contra evidence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.23,79,361 with future and pendentelite interest @10.25% with monthly rests; costs of proceedings allowed.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s.Mkr Stores — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 7^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.702 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.291/2020 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Ranipet Branch. Presently transferred to Stressed Assets Recovery, Chennai Metro Region – 2 Branch, 123, RL Road, Dugar Tower, Egmore, Chennai – 8. Represented by its Chief Manager.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s.MKR Stores, Rep. by Prop : Mr.Jaganathan R., No.17, Bazar Street, Sholingur, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District – 631 102.

¶10

Mr.Jaganathan R., No:17/48, Arjuna Reddy Street, Sholingur, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District – 631 102.

¶11

Mrs.M.R.Jeeva,

¶12

No.17, Bazar Street, Sholingur, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District – 631 102. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : Mr.O.F.Raju. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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.23,79,361/- due in cash credit loan availed by the defendants.

¶16

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant; a proprietary concern represented by proprietor, 2^nd defendant availed Cash Credit limit of Rs.26,50,000/- for which 3^rd defendant stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the said facility was secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties and also by hypothecation of movables.

¶17

It is also 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.

¶18

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

¶19

the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶20

The defendants entered appearance on summons and filed reply statement contending that even though the defendants have adhered to the repayment schedule, the applicant has not given proper credits

¶21

¶22

to the loan account. It is further contended that the bank had charged usurious interest and also the default is occurred because of lockdown due to COVID 19 pandemic. It is also contended that the blank forms and papers signed by defendants at the time of sanction were filled by the applicant to suit them for claiming the amount in the TA. The sudden recall of the facility by the applicant is also a reason for the defendants for their inability to rotate money which resulted in failure of their business.

¶23

Even though the defendants filed reply statement, subsequently as there was no representation for defendants, they were set exparte on 21.02.2024.

¶24

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A18.

¶25

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶27

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are decided together.

¶29

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted as no contra evidence is available from the side of the defendants. Even though the written statement is filed, no documents supporting the same is adduced or any serious dispute is raised in respect of documents relied by the

¶30

¶31

applicant and hence the evidence is proved. There is no dispute as to the liability and defaults raised in the reply statement. 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 a part satisfaction memo vide Sr.No.9906 dt.24.11.2023 stating that the schedule ‘B’ properties were sold under SARFAESI Act and realized a sum of Rs.12,50,000/and the same is recorded. Since the claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, pendentelite and future interest is awarded as prayed for after rejecting the prayer for penal interest.

¶32

In view of the above

¶33

i) TA No.702/2022 stands allowed.

¶34

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.23,79,361/(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousands Three Hundred and Sixty One only) with future and pendentelite interest @10.25% with monthly rests 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 schedule ‘A’ hypothecated movables, after giving credit to all

¶35

¶36

the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of

¶37

the TA including the amount of part satisfaction.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

Bank of Baroda v. M/s.Mkr Stores

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/s.Mkr Stores

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

Karur Vysya Bank versus Mrs. Kavitha S

Canara Bank versus Nila Paper Mill rep by Managing Partner

M/s.Indian Bank versus Ms.G.Pavithra

State Bank of India versus Chakkrapani P

Bank of Baroda versus Mr R Thulasingam

State Bank of India versus N.Ezhumalai