Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s.Yoga Enterprises

DRT27 Mar 2024TA/707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a Recovery Certificate. It held the creditor's evidence un-rebutted, admitted the claim within limitation, and directed recovery of the principal plus future interest at 12% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.84,25,799/- plus future interest @12% p.a. (simple). Recovery to be made jointly, severally from all defendants and assets, including sale of schedule properties.

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s.Yoga Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA.No.707 of 2022

¶6

(Old OA.No.115/2021 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶7

City Union Bank Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Vadakuthu Branch, No.13A/1, 40 Feet Road, Gandhi Gramam, Gandhi Nagar, Vadakuthu – 607 308. … Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s.Yoga Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, E.N.Arivazhagan, No.166, Elumichai Village, Oomangalam and Post, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 804.

¶10

E.N.Arivazhagan, S/o.Narayanasamy, No.166, Elumichai Village, Oomangalam and Post, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 804.

¶11

Mrs.A.Kavitha, W/o.E.N.Arivazhagan, No.166, Elumichai Village, Oomangalam and Post, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 804.

¶12

¶13

4. E.N.Vadivelu,

¶14

S/o.Narayanasamy, No.166, Elumichai Village, Oomangalam and Post, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 804.

¶15

Mrs.N.Periyanayaki, W/o.Narayanasamy, No.166, Elumichai Village, Oomangalam and Post, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 804.

¶16

C.Narayanasamy, S/o.Chinnasamy, No.166, Elumichai Village, Oomangalam and Post, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 804. … Defendants.

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.R.Sriram. Defendants : Exparte.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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.84,25,799/- due in CCOD and OSL Term Loans availed by the defendants.

¶20

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant proprietary concern represented by its proprietor, 2^nd defendant along with defendants 3 to 5 availed CCOD facility of Rs.50,00,000/- for which defendants 4 and 6 stood as guarantors. Subsequently, the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants

¶21

¶22

availed OSL Term Loans of Rs.11,10,000/- and Rs.21,75,000/- for which 5^th & 6^th defendants stood as guarantors. It is stated that the said facilities were secured by schedule mentioned properties.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 29.08.2022.

¶26

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A28.

¶27

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶28

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶29

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are decided together.

¶31

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and

¶32

¶33

are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence, the Applicant is found to

¶34

be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation

¶35

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 @ 12% p.a. (simple).

¶36

In view of the above

¶37

i) TA No.707/2022 stands allowed.

¶38

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.84,25,799/(Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousands Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine only) out of which an amount of Rs.40,14,598/- from all the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets; Rs.44,11,201/- from defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets; all with future and pendentelite interest @12% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization and also by sale of schedule mentioned properties after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 27^th day of March, 2024)

¶45

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

¶46

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s.Yoga Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. M/s.Yoga Enterprises

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

Canara Bank versus G. Edison

Bank of Baroda versus Jayakandan

State Bank of India versus Mr. S. Natarajan

State Bank of India versus Paramesh

State Bank of India versus Sri Vivekananda Builders

Canara Bank versus Mr. S. Pannerselvam