Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Krishna Cashews

DRT20 Feb 2024TA/748/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a debt recovery application under RajDBA 1993, the Tribunal upheld the bank's un-rebutted claim. It allowed the suit and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate for the secured principal, future interest, and costs against the proprietorial concern and its guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for around Rs. 5.69 Crores with future interest against the Loan Account Holders and Guarantors.

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Krishna Cashews — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 20^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.748 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.259/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

IDBI Bank Limited, Cuddalore Branch 14-B, Bethal Towers, Pondy Main Road, Alpet, Cuddalore – 607 001, IFSC Code : IBKL0000215

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s. Sri Krishna Cashews A proprietory Concern, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. C. Thangasamy, S/o. Mr. C. Chinnakannu Having registered office at No. 8, Lakshmipathy Nagar, Vadakailasam Village, Panruti, Cuddalore – 607 PAN No : ACSPT4713B

¶10

Mr. C. Thangasamy S/o. Mr. C. Chinnakannu PAN No: ACSPT4713B

¶11

Mrs. T. Rajeswari W/o. Mr. C. Thangasamy

¶12

Mr. T. Thangapandiyan S/o. Mr. C. Thangasamy

¶13

Defendants 2 to 4 permanently residing at: No. 8, Lakshmipathy Nagar, Vadakailasam Village, Panruti,

¶14

¶15

Cuddalore – 607 101

¶16

And presently residing at: North Street, Keezhakuppam, Nadukuppam (PO), Panruti, Cuddalore – 607 103 …Defendants

¶17

Counsel for Applicant :M/s. E. Vijayaraghavan Defendants : Exparte

¶18

…

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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 of Rs.5,69,75,362/-due in the two credit facilitiesi.e. Rs. 4,13,44,185/- due under the Cash Credit Account and Rs. 91,11,350/- due under the Packing Credit Loan along withRs. 65,19,827/- under Expenses Accountwit14520h future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶21

The Applicant Bank contends thata Packing Credit facility of Rs.30,00,000/- and a Cash Credit facility of Rs.30,00,000/-were availed by the 2^nd Defendant – Proprietor on behalf of the 1^st Defendant - Proprietary Concern. It is also stated that the Defendants D3 and D4 stood as guarantors, whereby the credit facilities are secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

The Applicant Bank further stated that for acquaintance and safeguarding the secured assets, the Applicant Bank has incurred a total sum of Rs. 65,19,827/- as on the date of filing the TA and maintained it in a separate Expenses A/c.

¶25

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 make the defendants pay back the amounts failed, forcing the Applicant Bank to file this Application.

¶26

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 04.10.2023.

¶27

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked ExbsA1 to A50.

¶28

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶29

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

¶30

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are decided together.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

In view of the above:

¶35

i. TA. No: 748of 2022 stands allowed.

¶36

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover a total amount of Rs. 5,69,75,362/- (Rupees Five Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred And Sixty Two Only/-)together with future and pendenteliteinterest @ 18.50%p.a. (simple)on Rs.4,13,44,185/-, @ 17.75% (simple) p.a. on Rs. 91,11,350/and @ 20.50% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 65,19,827/- from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and also by sale of the hypotheca.

¶37

iii. It is made clear that the defendants D2 to D4 are personally liable for all such amounts due in the Loan accounts.

¶38

iv. The schedule mentioned properties to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the

¶39

¶40

defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶41

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

¶42

vi. 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.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day of February, 2024)

¶46

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

¶47

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Krishna Cashews

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. M/s. Sri Krishna Cashews

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M.Rajesh Kumar

State Bank of India, versus Mr.S.Syed Ghouse

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam

Idbi Bank versus Sangeetha

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s.C.K.Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Balasubramanian D