Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s.Subish Plastics

DRT9 Feb 2024TA/734/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's application for a recovery certificate against the defendant for unpaid loan facilities totaling Rs. 72.70 lakhs plus future interest, ruling the evidence un-rebutted and claims within limitation.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate and permission to recover the principal amount of Rs. 72,70,638.85 with future interest at varying rates and monthly rests.

Canara Bank versus M/s.Subish Plastics — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 9^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.734 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.393/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Canara Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, No. 4, Jambulingam Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 …Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s. Subish Plastics, Represented by its Proprietor, Mrs. S. Subbulakshmi, 13/6, Palat Sankaran Salai, Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 …Defendant

¶8

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Renuka Shankar Defendant : Exparte.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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 ofRs.72,70,638.85/- due in the 3 Term

¶11

Loancredit facilities and 1 OCC credit facilityavailed by the

¶12

¶13

defendantalong with future interest and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶14

The defendant initially availed an OCC limit of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2005, which was periodically enhanced or revised ultimately resulting final renewal on 28.03.2018, to Rs.50,00,000/-. It is also stated that,in between -adhoc limits were also utilized by the defendants. It is further the case of the Applicant Bank that the defendant had also availed two Term Loansamounting to Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.5,50,000/- which were availed on 20.08.2014 and 25.01.2017 respectively. Apart from the above credit facilities, the defendant hadalso applied for and got sanctioned another MSME Term loan for Rs.6,00,000/- on 28.09.2017.The sole defendant had executed necessary loan documents for all the credit facilities availed.

¶15

The Applicant Bank further contends that despite availing the credit facilities by obliging to pay back the amounts, the defendant failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant Bank to make the defendant pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application after duly declaring the accounts as NPA on 09.04.2019.

¶16

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to enter appearance, she was set exparte on 28.6.2023.

¶17

¶18

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exbs. A1 to A222.

¶19

Heard.The following issues arise for consideration:

¶20

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

¶21

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶22

Both these issues are decided together.

¶23

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 found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶24

In view of the above

¶25

i. TA. No: 734of 2023 stands allowed.

¶26

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover atotal amount of Rs.72,70,638.85/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Eight and Paisa Eighty Five Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest @ 12.3%on Rs.62,33,561.82/-, @ 10.85% on Rs. 99,443.86/- and @10.30% on Rs.4,33,783.32/- and @10.70% on Rs. 5,03,849.85/-, all with monthly restsfrom the date of filing of the TA

¶27

¶28

tillrealization from the defendant and her assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by proceeding against hypotheca.

¶29

iii. It is made clear that the defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due in the Loan accounts.

¶30

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.

¶31

v. Applicant Bank is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶32

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.

¶33

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 9^th day of February, 2024)

¶34

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

¶35

Canara Bank v. M/s.Subish Plastics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s.Subish Plastics

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

Bank of Baroda versus Mr.B.Gunasekaran

State Bank of India versus Vijay

Canara Bank versus N.Kulandaivel

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) versus Mr. S. Annamalai (Borrower)

City Union Bank Ltd. versus Mr. K. Anand

Indian Overseas Bank, versus Mrs. Sudha