Allowed

Bank of India v. Moni Impex Private Limited

DRT10 Dec 2025OA/103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by a bank to recover dues from a company and its director. Both respondents appeared ex-parte. The court concluded the bank was entitled to recover the principal, interest, and costs amounting to Rs. 23,32,358/-.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of total sum of Rs. 23,32,358/- comprising principal, interest, and costs, with liberty to sell assets in case of default.

Bank of India versus Moni Impex Private Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 103 of 2022

¶2

10.12.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 103 of 2022

¶8

M/s. Bank of India, Kodungaiyur Branch, No. 3, Ethiraj Samy Salai Road, MR Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

M/s. Moni Impex Private Limited,

¶11

Rep. by Mrs. A. Salima,

¶12

No. 21/11, Labour Colony,

¶13

Guindy Industrial Estate,

¶14

Guindy, Chennai – 60032.

¶15

A. Salima,

¶16

W/o. Akther Hussain, Director,

¶17

No. AP 275, 10^th East Cross Street,

¶18

MKB Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039. …. Defendants

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Dr. S. Vidya

¶21

Defendants 1 & 2 were set ex-parte on 02.08.2022

¶22

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶23

This Original Application is filed on 22.03.2022 by the Applicant Bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendants 1 & 2, jointly and severally for recovery of a

¶24

total sum of Rs.23,32,358/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty

¶25

O.A. No. 103 of 2022

¶26

¶27

10.12.2025

¶28

Two Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Eight only) as follows:

¶29

(i) A sum of Rs.17,18,997/- due in respect of Cash Credit

¶30

Facility (Account No. 802130110000117) repayable together with further interest @ 7.85% p.a. compounded with monthly rests and penal interest at the rate of 2% from the date of Application till the date of realization in full;

¶31

(ii) A sum of Rs.4,27,433/- due in respect of GECL Facility (Account No.802170410000143) repayable together with further interest @ 11.45% p.a. compounded with monthly rests and penal interest at the rate of 2% from the date of Application till the date of realization in full;

¶32

(iii) A sum of Rs.1,85,928/- due in respect of CESS Facility (Account No.802170410000143) repayable together with further interest @ 7.25% p.a. compounded with monthly rests and penal interest at the rate of 2% from the date of Application till the date of realization in full; and for costs of this Original Application.

¶33

Brief Facts of the case:

¶34

The Applicant submits that the application is filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and the subject recovery claim falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶35

It is the case of the Applicant Bank that the 1^st defendant is a Company engaged in import and export of goods, who approached

¶36

O.A. No. 103 of 2022

¶37

¶38

10.12.2025

¶39

applicant bank and submitted an application dated 07.12.2018 for the purpose of meeting the needs of business and thus requested for sanction of loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- as Cash Credit, Rs. 1,50,000/- as CESS Loan and Rs. 3,50,000/- as GECL Loan. The 2^nd defendant is the present Director of 1^st Defendant. The erstwhile Director Sh. Akther Hussain died and after his demise, his wife Smt. A. Salima is continuing the business.

¶40

It is submitted by the applicant bank that considering the request of the defendants, the Applicant Bank had sanctioned a sum Rs. 15,00,000/on 07.12.2018, Rs.3.50,000/-, on 06/06/2020, Rs. 1,50,000/- on 04.05.2020 for the business purpose of the defendants vide Credit Sanction for Cash Credit Limit dated 07.12.2018, 04.05.2020 and 06.06.2020 respectively, which is repayable at the rate of 7.85%, 11.45% and 7.25% rate of interest, due to non-payment it has been compounded to 2% rate of interest.

¶41

Upon availing the said loan, the Defendants executed the necessary

¶42

loan and security documents in favour of applicant bank viz., Promissory Notes dated 18.12.2018, 04.05.2020 and 06.06.2020, Hypothecation Agreement for overdraft facility dated 07.12.2018, Declaration by defendants dated 07.12.2018, 04.05.2020 and 06.06.2020, Borrower - Guarantor’s Profile dated 07.12.2018, MCLR Agreement dated 07.12.2018, RBLR Agreement dated 26.03.2020, Deed of Guarantee dated 07.12.2018, Declaration by the defendants dated 07.12.2018, 04.05.2020 and 06.06.2020 respectively.

¶43

O.A. No. 103 of 2022

¶44

10.12.2025

¶45

¶46

The Applicant Bank submits that subsequent to availing of aforesaid credit facilities, the Defendants violated the terms of sanction, including the repayment schedule and therefore, the loan account has become NonPerforming Asset (NPA) on 29.10.2021 in accordance with RBI guidelines. The Loan sanctioned to the Defendants fall under the priority sector lending. Considering the previous history and records, the loan was sanctioned to the Defendants are GECL LOAN, CESS LOAN, and CASH CREDIT LIMIT, the Applicant Bank gave a long time to the Defendants to adjust the dues. In fact, many times, the officials of the Applicant Bank called upon the Defendants personally and requested them to take efforts to adjust the outstanding dues.

¶47

It is further submitted that the Applicant Bank had orally offered many times one time settlement to the Defendants. There were several personal follow up, meetings held with the Defendants by various officials of the bank. But, it can be seen from the Statement of Accounts that the Defendants did not have any intention to repay the dues or come forward for settlement, despite the Applicant Bank's offer to settle the dues. Hence, the Applicant Bank issued a Legal Notice to the Defendants on 28.12.2021, despite which the Defendants have not made any payment. All the efforts taken by the Applicant Bank to recover the dues resulted in futility. The Defendants have become wilful defaulters, although the Defendants acknowledged the letters/notice sent by the Applicant Bank, no effort has been taken by them to repay the same. Hence, the present

¶48

O.A. No. 103 of 2022

¶49

10.12.2025

¶50

¶51

Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendants.

¶52

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the defendants 1 & 2 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which returned unserved with postal endorsement as ‘No such Company’ to the D-1, while summons sent to D-2 returned with a postal endorsement as “Refused”. Service was held sufficient in respect of D-2. Applicant Bank had caused paper publication of the notice in respect of D-1 and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 02.08.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, defendants 1 & 2 were placed ex-parte on 02.08.2022.

¶53

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the

¶54

records.

¶55

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. Jayaraj Manikkath, Authorized Officer/Constituted Power of Attorney of the Applicant Bank, has filed his Affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex. A-1 to A-25 . As the Defendants remained ex-parte, the OA claim remains unchallenged. There is no contra evidence available on record to repudiate the claim of the Applicant Bank.

¶56

With regard to the amount advanced, the interest applied, the

¶57

O.A. No. 103 of 2022

¶58

10.12.2025

¶59

¶60

conduct and operations in the account and the default committed, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant bank is entitled for a final order on the following terms:

¶61

: O R D E R :

¶62

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶63

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the defendants jointly and severally for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,32,358/(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Eight only) as follows:

¶64

(i) A sum of Rs.17,18,997/- due in respect of Cash Credit Facility (Account No. 802130110000117) repayable together with further interest @ 7.85% p.a. compounded with monthly rests and penal interest at the rate of 2% from the date of Application till the date of realization in full;

¶65

¶66

¶67

O.A. No. 103 of 2022

¶68

10.12.2025

¶69

¶70

date of Application till the date of realization in full; along with costs of this application;

¶71

(b) If the event of default in repayment of dues by the defendants as ordered above, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the personal assets of the 2^nd Defendant (both movable and immovable) to recover the balance dues as required under law for which the 2^nd Defendant to disclose to the Tribunal particulars of other properties or assets owned by the 2^nd Defendant.

¶72

(c) The applicant bank shall file the latest memo of calculation of OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by the Defendants duly considering the amounts, if any, paid by the Defendant and/or amount realized by sale of assets etc., during the intervening period after the filing of the OA, enabling the Registry to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by Defendants to the applicant bank.

¶73

(d) The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of receipt of this final order.

¶74

(g) Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

¶75

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶76

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶77

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 10^th

¶78

day of December, 2025)

¶79

O.A. No. 103 of 2022

10.12.2025

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶84

AW-1: Sh. Jayaraj Manikkath, Authorized Officer/Constituted Power of Attorney of the Applicant Bank

¶85

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶86

Sl. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	07.12.2018	Credit Sanction Intimation	A-1
2.	04.05.2020	Credit Sanction Intimation	A-2
3.	06.06.2020	Credit Sanction Intimation	A-3
4.	07.12.2018	Application Form	A-4
5.	06.06.2020	Cash Credit Facilities	A-5
6.	04.05.2020	Cash Credit Facilities	A-6
7.	07.12.2018	Cash Credit Facilities	A-7
8.	07.12.2018	Hypothecation Agreement for ODverdraft Facility	A-8
9.	07.12.2018	Demand Promissory	A-9
10.	04.05.2020	Demand Promissory	A-10
11.	06.06.2020	Demand Promissory	A-11
12.	07.12.2018	Declaration by the Defendants	A-12
13.	04.05.2020	Declaration by the Defendants	A-13
14.	06.06.2020	Declaration by the Defendants	A-14
15.	07.12.2018	Borrowers Guarantor’s Profile	A-15
16.	07.12.2018	Borrowers Guarantor’s Profile	A-16
17.	07.12.2018	MCLR Agreement	A-17
18.	26.03.2020	RBLR Agreement	A-18
19.	07.12.2018	Deed of Guarantee	A-19
20.	07.12.2018	Declaration by the Defendants	A-20
21.	04.05.2020	Declaration by the Defendants	A-21
22.	06.06.2020	Declaration by the Defendants	A-22
23.	28.12.2021	Legal Notice	A-23
24.	05.01.2022	Notice Return Cover	A-24
25.	07.02.2022	Statement of Accounts–OD Account	A-25

¶87

Witness Examined for the Defendants : -NilList of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants : -Nil –

¶88

:-SCHEDULE-:

¶89

Nil –

¶90

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

Bank of India v. Moni Impex Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Moni Impex Private Limited

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

A Sudha versus City Union Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Moorthy

1.M/s. Gowri Fabricators versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus Jeevanandham Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Jai Kamal Paints

State Bank of India versus Kannan