Allowed

Indian Bank v. Surya Plastics

DRT26 Mar 2024TA/789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. It found evidence un-rebutted and sufficient to prove the claim. The applicant is entitled to recover Rs. 31,43,608 from defendants jointly, severally and personally, along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate is to be drawn for Rs. 31,43,608/-. Recovery of Rs. 19,79,564/- from all defendants and Rs. 11,64,044/- from 1st and 3rd defendants jointly, severally and personally with interest

Indian Bank versus Surya Plastics — Company and Corporate | 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

TA.No.789 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.241/2020 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Indian Bank, e-Allahabad Bank, IFSC : ALLA0211042, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Anna Nagar Branch, F48, New No.54, 1^st Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s.Surya Plastics, Prop.Smt.Geetha Kashyap Jain, W/o.Ajay Kumar Kashyap Jain, PAN No.BBKPG0922R, No.1/615, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037.

¶10

Also at No.13, II Block, Valliammal Street, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037.

¶11

Also at No.1/615, 1^st Block, Near D.R.Super Market, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037.

¶12

Smt. Esther Bai, W/o.Vincent, No.6/715, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037.

¶13

¶14

Also at

¶15

No.13/71, Edaikulam Ward, Kamaraj Nagar, Kuzhithurai, Vilavancode, Kanyakumari District – 629 163.

¶16

Mr.Ajay Kumar Kashyap Jain, S/o.Jagpathi Doss Jain, No.1/615, 1^st Block, Near D.R.Super Market, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. … Defendants.

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Pandurangan. 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.31,43,608/- due in Cash Credit and Term Loan availed by the defendants from the erstwhile Allahadbad Bank.

¶20

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant, proprietary concern represented by proprietrix, Smt.Geetha Kashyap Jain wife of 3^rd defendant availed Cash Credit facility of Rs.20,00,000/- for which 2^nd and 3^rd defendants stood as guarantors and Term Loan of Rs.8,15,000/- for which 3^rd defendant stood as guarantors from the erstwhile Allahabad Bank.

¶21

¶22

It is further stated that the said facility was secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned property and also by hypothecation of stocks and book debts.

¶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 1 and 3 failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 01.07.2022 and 12.10.2023 respectively. Even though 2^nd defendant entered appearance she did not file reply statement and hence chance for filing reply statement was closed on 01.07.2022 and subsequently as there is no representation, she was set exparte on 07.03.2024.

¶26

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A22.

¶27

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶28

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶29

¶30

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are decided together.

¶32

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence, the Applicant 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 claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @ 10% p.a. (simple).

¶33

In view of the above

¶34

i) TA No.789/2023 stands allowed.

¶35

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.31,43,608/(Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Forty Three Thousands Six Hundred and Eight only) out of which an amount of Rs.19,79,564/- is to be recovered from all the defendants jointly, severally, personally and from their assets and Rs.11,64,044/- is to be recovered from 1^st and 3^rd defendants jointly, severally, personally and from their assets both with future and pendentelite interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization and also by sale of schedule mentioned

¶36

¶37

property and hypothecated assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Indian Bank v. Surya Plastics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Surya 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

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