Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Dhanakoti Traders

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for a Recovery Certificate of Rs. 42.73 lakhs + interest against lenders' borrowers and guarantor, noting un-rebutted evidence and lack of defense. It directed issuance of the certificate and recovery from joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 42,73,882.25 plus future/pendente lite interest at 9% simple from date of application.

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

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.765 of 2022

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.55 of 2022 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.765 of 2022)

¶6

Canara Bank Rep. by its Senior Manager Karaikadu Branch, Virudhachalam Road, Kannarapettai Cuddalore District … Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Dhanakoti Traders Rep. by its Proprietor G. Nandagopalakrishnan South Street, Sammattikuppam Kurunjipadi, Cuddalore – 607 301

¶9

G. Nandagopalakrishnan S/o. Gothandapani South Street, Sammattikuppam Kurunjipadi, Cuddalore – 607 301

¶10

R.Sanjay Gadhi S/o Rajendran 35, East street, Vazhaikollai Sethiathoppu, Cuddalore -608 702 …Defendants Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s K. Anbarasan Counsel for Defendants : Ex-parte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 42,73,882.25 (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two and Twenty Five paisa only) due in MSME loan for developing Business of Cashew.

¶13

¶14

The above TA was originally filed before DRT-I and got transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶15

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs. 35,95,000/- was availed by 1^st defendant, a proprietary concern represented by its Proprietor the 2^nd defendant. The 3^rd defendant stood as a guarantor to the said facility. It is also stated that the facility is secured by hypothecation over Cashew stocks at warehouse.

¶16

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendant failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount including issuance of a notice dated 25.12.2020 failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶17

Even though a counsel entered appearance for the defendants and under taken to file vakalat, no vakalat is filed as there was no representation on subsequent postings the defendants were set exparte on 1.9.2022.

¶18

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit confirming with the pleadings and got marked Ext A1 to A8.

¶19

Heard, the following issues arise for consideration: -

¶20

(i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶21

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶22

Both these issues are decided together.

¶23

¶24

The Applicant evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove TA claim. Hence the Applicant is to be found entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate and the same is not interfered with, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 9% simple.

¶25

In view of the above, the following order is passed: -

¶26

(a) TA No.765 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶27

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.42,73,882.25p (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two and Twenty Five paisa only) with future and pendente lite interest @ 9% simple P.A from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA/TA, from the defendants jointly and severally and also personally against defendants 2 and 3 and also by proceedings against their assets.

¶28

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

¶29

(d) Applicant 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.

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 26^th day of March, 2024)

¶34

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

¶35

Canara Bank v. M/s. Dhanakoti Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Dhanakoti Traders

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

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh

State Bank of India versus Cm Atheequr Rahman Co.

State Bank of India versus P. Kaviyarasan

Indian Bank versus M/s. Balaji Enterprises