Allowed

Dbs Bank India Ltd. v. . M/s. Kamadhenu Dhall - Flour Mill

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/766/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined whether the bank proved its claim for a recovery certificate on an OCC loan. Finding the evidence un-rebutted, the Tribunal allowed the application, directed issuance of a recovery certificate, and granted sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Recovery Certificate to be issued for Rs. 34,72,098.40/P plus 14% pa simple interest; Hypothecated assets sold for credit; 2nd Defendant personally liable; Cost memo to be filed.

Dbs Bank India Ltd. versus . M/s. Kamadhenu Dhall… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 26^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.766 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.654/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

DBS Bank India Ltd. Erstwhile The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Pudukottai Branch, T.S. No. 5537, 5538, South 4^th Street, Pudukottai – 622 001 Tamil Nadu

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s. Kamadhenu Dhall & Flour Mill Rep. by its proprietor J. Hema Latha T.S No. 2327, West Second Street, Pudukottai – 622 001

¶10

J. Hema Latha T.S. No. 2327, West Second Street, Pudukottai – 622 001 ...Defendants

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.A. V. Radhakrishnan Counsel for Defendants : M/s. C. Ramaiah

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶14

And Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.34,72,098.40Pdue under the OCC

¶15

¶16

(CGTMSE Scheme) Loan A/calong with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned hypotheca.

¶17

The Applicant Bank contends thatan OCC (CGTMSE) Loan credit facility of Rs.30,00,000/-was availed by the 1^st DefendantProprietary Concern represented by 2^nd Defendant – Proprietor from erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank which later got amalgamated with the Applicant Bank. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by hypothecation of schedule mentioned assets.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

The Defendants filed reply statement admitting the availment of the credit facility. However, the execution of loan documents are disputed. The defendants are also disputing the quantum as claimed in the TA and is having a case that the Applicant Bank has levied exorbitant interest.

¶21

¶22

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs. A1 to A33. The defendants filed their counter proof affidavit reiterating contentions in the reply statement.

¶23

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶24

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

¶25

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are decided together.

¶27

The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. Even though a CPA is filed reiterating the contentions of the reply statement, nothing is brought out to discard the documentary evidence produced by the Applicant Bank. 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 found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, which is on the higher side, prayer for monthly rests is declined.

¶28

In view of the above:

¶29

i. TA. No: 766of 2022 stands allowed.

¶30

¶31

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 34,72,098.40P (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Ninety Eight and Forty Paise Only/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 14% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of the hypotheca after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶32

iii. It is made clear that the 2^nd Defendant is personally liable for all such amounts due in the Loan accounts.

¶33

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan accounts of D1 and D2.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 26^th day of March, 2024)

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

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

¶42

Dbs Bank India Ltd. v. . M/s. Kamadhenu Dhall - Flour Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dbs Bank India Ltd. v. . M/s. Kamadhenu Dhall - Flour Mill

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