Allowed

South Indian Bank v. Eks Spinners Private Ltd.

DRT28 Jul 2025OA/160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19(1) of the RDDBFI Act 1993. The bank proved the availing of loans and default. The court rejected defenses regarding unauthorized signatures and excessive interest, holding borrowers bound by signed documents. An Anti-Attachment Before Judgment petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay total sum of Rs.10.71 Crores with interest and costs; permitting sale of mortgaged properties for recovery; directing preparation and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

South Indian Bank versus Eks Spinners Private Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

OA.No. 160/24 Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI DATED THIS 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA, [PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE – Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No.160/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

The South Indian Bank Ltd, Rep by its Senior Manager Rajapalayam Branch, D.No.474, 476 & 477, Opp. to Chitra Hospitals, Thenkasi Road, Rajapalayam-626117 Virudhunagar District ---Applicant Bank

¶6

And

¶7

M/s EKS Spinners Private Limited, Rep by its Managing Director Mr.K.S.Anbalagan, 2/120, Post Box No 7, Renganathapuram Street, Dhalavaipuram, Rajapalayam Taluk - 626188 Virudhunagar District

¶8

Mr.K.S.Anbalagan,

¶9

S/o Sivasubramaniyam, No 36C, Pambalamman Kovil Theru, Chettiyarpatti, Ayyankollankondan, Virudhunagar - 626122

¶10

OA No. 160/24

¶11

Mrs.A.Meena, W/o.Anbalagan, No 36C, Pambalamman Kovil Theru, Chettiyarpatti, Ayyankollankondan, Virudhunagar - 626122

¶12

Mr.K.S.Senthilkumar, S/o Sivasubramaniyam, No 1/602, Kamaraj Nagar, Dhalavaipuram, Virudhunagar - 626188

¶13

Mrs.S.Muthulakshmi, W/o. K.S.Senthilkumar No 1/602, Kamaraj Nagar, Dhalavaipuram, Virudhunagar - 626188

¶14

Mr.K.S.Ramesh, S/o Sivasubramaniyam, No 1/598 Kamaraj Nagar, Dhalavaipuram, Virudhunagar - 626188

¶15

Mrs.R.Amutha, W/o. K.S.Ramesh. No 1/598 Kamaraj Nagar, Dhalavaipuram, Virudhunagar - 626188

¶16

Mr.K.Selvaraj, S/o Sivasubramaniyam, No 1/656, Kamaraj Nagar, Dhalavaipuram, Virudhunagar– 626188

¶17

Page 2 of 26

¶18

OA No. 160/24

¶19

Mrs. S. Varalakshmi, W/o K.S.Selvaraj No 1/656, Kamaraj Nagar, Dhalavaipuram, Virudhunagar– 626188 ---Defendants

¶20

Appearance of Advocates:-

¶21

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s B. Rajesh saravanan Counsel for the Defendant : M/s Vastlaw Associates

¶22

JUDGEMENT

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the Application u/s 19 (1) of the RDDBFI Act 1993 against the Defendant on 30.12.2023 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.10,71,38,613.24p i.e. (i) All the defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,99,27,908.48 with interest at the rate of 15.40% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. in respect of CCOL

¶24

(ii) 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th , & 8^th defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,77,041.71p with interest at the rate of 9.25% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. on Rs.1,20,91,368.71p in respect of ECLGS

¶25

(iii) 6^th , & 7^th defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.23,84,661.66p with interest at the rate of 10.70% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. on Rs.23,75,294.66p in respect of Term Loan-I

¶26

¶27

The Counsel for the Defendants made appearance and filed Vakalat on behalf of defendants on 04.09.24, filed written statement on 30.04.25 and filed CPA on 15.05.25. Subsequently, the Applicant Bank has filed PA/OD 26.05.25. After the written arguments of the Applicant Bank and arguments of Defendant have been heard on 02.06.25 in detail and since pleading are complete, the matter was reserved for orders.

¶28

Page 3 of 26

¶29

OA No. 160/24

¶30

The 1^st Defendant is a Private Limited Company, which is doing business at 2/120, Post Box No 7, Renganathapuram Street, Dhalavaipuram, Rajapalayam Taluk,-626188, Virudhunagar District. The 1st Defendant is the borrower. The 2^nd to 9^th Defendants are guarantors. On 15.02.2019, the 1^st Defendant had approached the Applicant Bank and sought a loan for their business activities as they wanted to close the credit facilities with M/s IDBI Bank Ltd and avail credit facilities from the Applicant Bank.

¶31

On such application and on careful scrutiny of documents by the Applicant Bank, the 1^st Defendant had been sanctioned with a sum of Rs.7,25,00,000/- [Rupees Seven Crores and Twenty-Five Lakhs Only] as CCOL; Rs.42,00,000/-[Rupees Forty-Two Lakhs Only] as TL-Machinery and Rs.2,00,00,000/ [Rupees Two Crores Only] as DBD (LC) Continuance and informed the same by way of Sanction Intimation Letter dated 29.03.2019. A copy of the same has been countersigned by the defendants as a token of acceptance of the terms and conditions therein. On such sanction, the 1^st Defendant on 29.03.2019, had executed a Demand Promissory Note for Limited Companies in favour of the Applicant Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs.7,25,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores and Twenty-Five Lakhs Only) as CCOL (Cash Credit Open Loan) from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount with the rate of interest at 10.50% p.a with monthly rest. The 1^st Defendant also agreed to pay 2% penal interest over and above the prevailing rate of interest in the event of default of payment of any interest or portion of interest remaining unpaid.

¶32

The 1^st Defendant on 29.03.2019, had executed an Agreement of Hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs.7,67,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores and Sixty-Seven Lakhs Only), which include Rs.42,00,000/- [Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Only] as Term Loan from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount with the rate of interest at 10.50%p.a with monthly rest and also executed a Credit Facility Agreement for Operating Loan Accounts in favour of the Applicant Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs.7,25,00,000/(Rupees Seven Crores and Twenty-Five Lakhs Only) as CCOL (Cash Credit Open Loan) from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount with the rate of interest thereon at 10.50% p.a with monthly rest and Credit Facility Agreement for Term Loan Account in favour

¶33

Page 4 of 26

¶34

OA No. 160/24

¶35

of the Applicant Bank and also the 1^st Defendant had executed a Credit Facility Agreement (for BG Limit Sanction) in favour of the Applicant Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) as Bank Guarantee Loan from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount.

¶36

The 1^st Defendant had executed and application for opening LC and also a Credit Facility Agreement (for Inland/Import Letter of Credit) in favour of the Applicant Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Only) as LC (Inland/Import) Loan from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount. The 2^nd to 9^th Defendants had also executed an Agreement of Guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank and stand as guarantor for a sum of Rs.11,72,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crores and Seventy Two Lakhs Only) for 1^st Defendant at Rajapalayam. The 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th & 8^th Defendants had executed a Deed of Declaration from the Mortgagor jointly and severally in favour of the Applicant Bank and had executed Authorization letter for creation of mortgage jointly and severally in favour of the Applicant Bank and also they had executed an Agreement to Mortgage for Take Over Loans jointly and severally in favour of the Applicant Bank. The 1^st to 9^th Defendants had executed an Acknowledgement of Receipt of Copy of Documents in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶37

The 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th , & 8^th Defendants created equitable mortgage in respect of Schedule mentioned properties and other properties in favour of the Applicant Bank, by way of deposit of title deeds, with an intention to create equitable mortgage in favour of Applicant Bank for the said loan amounts on 10.06.2019 and also executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of the Applicant Bank on 10.06.2019 and registered on 10.06.2019 vide Regt No. 1535/2019 of Seithur SRO.

¶38

The 1^st Defendant had approached again the Applicant Bank for renewal of credit facilities. On such application and on careful scrutiny of documents by the Applicant Bank, the 1^st Defendant herein had been sanctioned with a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- [Rupees Seven Crores and Fifty Lakhs Only], which includes Ad-Hoc of Rs.25,00,000/- for 90 days i.e., valid till 10.03.2020 as CCOL and informed the same by way of Sanction Intimation Letter dated 26.12.2019. A copy of the same has been countersigned by the defendants as a token of acceptance of the terms and conditions therein.

¶39

Page 5 of 26

¶40

OA No. 160/24

¶41

The 1^st Defendant had executed a Demand Promissory Note for Limited Companies in favour of the Applicant Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs Only) as CCOL (Cash Credit Open Loan) from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount with the rate of interest thereon at 12.55% p.a with monthly rest and also the 1^st prime Defendant had executed a Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank. The 2^nd to 9^th Defendants had executed an Agreement of Guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank and stood as guarantors of above loan. The Defendants had executed an Acknowledgement of Debt and Security and thereby acknowledged their liability in favour of the Applicant Bank. The 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th & 8^th Defendants executed Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, in favour of the Applicant Bank on 26.12.2019 and registered on 26.12.2019 vide Regt No. 3562/2019 of Seithur SRO.

¶42

The 1^st Defendant had approached the Applicant Bank for renewal of credit facilities. On such application and on careful scrutiny of documents by the Applicant Bank, the 1^st Defendant herein had been sanctioned with a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- [Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs Only], which includes Ad-Hoc of Rs.25,00,000/- for 90 days i.e., valid till 19.07.2020 as CCOL and informed the same by way of Sanction Intimation Letter dated 05.05.2020. A copy of the same has been countersigned by the defendants as a token of acceptance of the terms and conditions therein. The 1^st Defendant on 05.05.2020, had executed a Demand Promissory Note for Limited Companies in favour of the Applicant Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs Only) as CCOL (Cash Credit Open Loan) from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount with the rate of interest thereon at 12.50% p.a with monthly rest and also executed a Credit Facility Agreement for Operating Loan Accounts for a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- and had executed a Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank. The 2^nd to 9^th Defendants had executed an Agreement of Guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank and stood as guarantors of above loan. The Defendants had executed an Application for continuance of Limit and Securities in favour of the Applicant Bank and extended their liability over the Schedule Properties.

¶43

Page 6 of 26

¶44

OA No. 160/24

¶45

Further the 1^st Defendant had approached the Applicant Bank for renewal of credit facilities with reduction in Limit. On such application and on careful scrutiny of documents by the Applicant Bank, the 1^st Defendant had renewed a sum of Rs.6,55,00,000/- [Rupees Six Crores and Fifty Five Lakhs Only] as CCOL and informed the same by way of Sanction Intimation Letter dated 05.05.2020. On 11.06.2020, the Defendants had executed a Letter of Renewal for continuance of CCOL Facility with reduction Limit in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶46

In the wake of Covid-19, the 1^st Defendant had approached the applicant bank for additional credit facility by way of ECLGS facility for a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Only). The 1^st Defendant on 06.06.2020, had executed a Credit Facility Agreement for Operating Loan Accounts for a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Only) from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount with the rate of interest thereon at 9.25% p.a with monthly rest. The 1^st Defendant had executed a Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants had executed an Application for continuance of Limit and Securities in favour of the Applicant Bank and extended their liability over the Schedule Properties.

¶47

Again the 1^st Defendant had approached the Applicant Bank for renewal of credit facilities and it had been sanctioned with a sum of Rs.6,80,00,000/- [Rupees Six Crores Eighty Lakhs Only], which includes Ad-Hoc of Rs.25,00,000/- for 90 days as CCOL. The 1^st Defendant on 14.09.2020, had executed a Demand Promissory Note for a sum of Rs.6,80,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Lakhs Only) as CCOL (Cash Credit Open Loan) and agreed to repay the said loan amount with the rate of interest at 12.10% p.a with monthly rest. The 1^st Defendant had executed a Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶48

As per the request of the defendants, the Applicant Bank had released two of the mortgaged properties upon execution of Partial Discharge Receipt in favour of 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th & 8^th Defendants on 03.07.2020, 08.06.2022 and 21.11.2022. These Partial Discharge Receipts had been registered at Seithur Sub Registrar Office as Regt No 1625/2020; 1801/2022 and 3710/2022. After execution of above documents, now the Schedule Properties are covering the liabilities of the defendants. Photocopies of Partial Discharge Receipts are produced. In intermediate period, on 02.05.2019, the 6^th & 7^th

¶49

Page 7 of 26

¶50

OA No. 160/24

¶51

Defendants had approached the Applicant Bank for financial facility and the 6^th & 7^th Defendants herein had been sanctioned with a sum of Rs.24,63,000/-[Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Only] as Term Loan - 1 and Rs.24,02,000/- [Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Two Thousand Only] as Term Loan-II. The 6^th & 7^th Defendants on 08.05.2019, had executed a Credit Facility Agreement in favour of the Applicant Bank for having borrowed a sum of Rs.24,63,000/-(Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Only) as Term Loan 1 and a sum of Rs.24,02,000/-(Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Two Thousand Only) as Term Loan -2 from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam, promising to repay the said loan amount with the rate of interest thereon at 10.70% p.a with monthly rest.

¶52

The 6^th Defendant, who intent to close the credit facilities with M/s IDBI Bank by availing above two loans from the Applicant Bank and discharge the mortgage over the 'B' Schedule Property from M/s IDBI Bank and create equitable mortgage with the Applicant Bank over the 'B' Schedule Property. In this regard, the 6th Defendant on 08.05.2019, had executed an Agreement to Mortgage for Take Over Loan for a sum of Rs.48,65,000/-(Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Only) as Term Loans availed from the Applicant Bank at Rajapalayam. The 6th & 7th Defendants executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, in favour of the Applicant Bank on 26.06.2019 and registered on 26.06.2019 vide Regt No. 1727/2019 of Seithur SRO. Further the defendant has not properly repaid the Loan as agreed and committed default in repaying the loan. Despite repeated demands made by the Applicant Bank, the defendant did not take any steps to discharge the loan. As 1^st defendant company defaulted in the repayment due it was classified as NPA on 31.03.2022, and the credit facilities availed by the 6^th and 7^th defendants was classified as NPA on 07.10.2023. The applicant bank issued loan recall notice dated 21.05.2022 & 02.11.2023.

¶53

Hence, the Applicant Bank has filed the OA for recovery of a total sum of Rs.10,71,38,613.24p i.e.,

¶54

(i) All the defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,99,27,908.48p with interest at the rate of 15.40% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. in respect of CCOL

¶55

(ii) 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th , & 8^th defendants jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,77,041.71p with interest at the rate of 9.25% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. on Rs.1,20,91,368.71p in respect of ECLGS

Page 8 of 26

OA No. 160/24

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPLICANT BANK

¶61

S. No.	Date	Description of document	Exhibits
1.	28.03.2019	Sanction Letter	Ex.No.A-01
2.	29.03.2019	Demand PromissoryNote	Ex.No.A-02
3.	29.03.2019	Hypothecation Agreement	Ex.No.A-03
4.	29.03.2019	Credit facility Agreement for operating loan accounts and Term loan account	Ex.No.A-04
5.	29.03.2019	Credit facility Agreement (For BG Limit sanction)	Ex.No.A-05
6.	29.03.2019	Credit facility Agreement (For specific BG issued bythe Bank)	Ex.No.A-06
7.	29.03.2019	Credit facility Agreement (For Inland/Import letter of Credit)	Ex.No.A-07
8.	29.03.2019	Agreement of Guarantee	Ex.No.A-08
9.	29.03.2019	Deed of Declaration from the Mortgagor	Ex.No.A-09
10.	29.03.2019	Agreement to Mortgage for Takeover loans	Ex.No.A-10
11.	29.03.2019	Acknowledgement of Receipt of copy of Documents	Ex.No.A-11
12.	29.03.2019	Authorization letter forcreation of Mortgage	Ex.No.A-12
13.	10.06.2019	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds (Regt.No.1535/2019 of Seithur SRO)	Ex.No.A-13
14.	26.12.2019	Sanction Letter	Ex.No.A-14
15.	26.12.2019	Demand PromissoryNote	Ex.No.A-15
16.	26.12.2019	Credit facility Agreement for operating loan accounts	Ex.No.A-16
17.	26.12.2019	Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation	Ex.No.A-17
18.	26.12.2019	Agreement of Guarantee	Ex.No.A-18

¶62

Page 9 of 26

¶63

OA No. 160/24

¶64

19.	26.12.2019	Acknowledgement of Debt and Security	Ex.No.A-19
20.	26.12.2019	Supplemental Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds (Regt.No.3562/2019 of Seithur SRO)	Ex.No.A-20
21.	05.05.2020	Sanction Letter	Ex.No.A-21
22.	05.05.2020	Demand PromissoryNote	Ex.No.A-22
23.	05.05.2020	Credit facility Agreement for operating loan accounts	Ex.No.A-23
24.	05.05.2020	Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation	Ex.No.A-24
25.	05.05.2020	Agreement of Guarantee	Ex.No.A-25
26.	05.05.2020	Application for continuance of Limit and securities	Ex.No.A-26
27.	05.05.2020	Sanction Letter	Ex.No.A-27
28.	11.06.2020	Renewal for continuance of CCOL facility with reduction limit	Ex.No.A-28
29.	11.06.2020	Acknowledgement of Debt and Security	Ex.No.A-29
30.	06.06.2020	Sanction Letter	Ex.No.A-30
31.	06.06.2020	Credit facilityAgreement	Ex.No.A-31
32.	06.06.2020	Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation	Ex.No.A-32
33.	06.06.2020	Application for continuance of Limit and securities	Ex.No.A-33
34.	14.09.2020	Sanction Letter	Ex.No.A-34
35.	14.09.2020	Demand PromissoryNote	Ex.No.A-35
36.	14.09.2020	Credit facility Agreement for operating loan accounts	Ex.No.A-36
37.	14.09.2020	Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation	Ex.No.A-37
38.	14.09.2020	Agreement of Guarantee	Ex.No.A-38
39.	14.09.2020	Application for continuance of Limit and securities	Ex.No.A-39
40.	14.09.2020	Acknowledgement of Debt and Security	Ex.No.A-40
41.	26.05.2022	Acknowledgement of Debt and Security	Ex.No.A-41
42.	08.05.2019	Sanction Letter	Ex.No.A-42
43.	08.05.2019	Credit facilityAgreement	Ex.No.A-43
44.	08.05.2019	Credit facilityAgreement	Ex.No.A-44
45.	26.06.2019	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds (Regt.No.1727/2019 of Seithur SRO)	Ex.No.A-45
46.	03.07.2024	Sale certificate(Regt.No.444/1986)	Ex.No.A-46
47.	20.03.1995	Sale Deed(Regt.No.291/1995)	Ex.No.A-47
48.	30.11.2006	Partition Deed(Regt.No.2315/2007)	Ex.No.A-48

¶65

Page 10 of 26

¶66

OA No. 160/24

¶67

49.	30.05.2013	Rectification Deed(Regt.No.1526/2013)	Ex.No.A-49
50.	03.07.2020	Partial Discharge Deed(Regt.No.1625/2020)	Ex.No.A-50
51.	08.06.2022	Partial Discharge Deed(Regt.No.1801/2022)	Ex.No.A-51
52.	21.11.2022	Partial Discharge Deed(Regt.No.3710/2022)	Ex.No.A-52
53.	13.12.2023	Statement of Account 0710652000000118	Ex.No.A-53
54.	13.12.2023	Statement of Account 0710656000000060	Ex.No.A-54
55.	13.12.2023	Statement of Account 0710652000000117	Ex.No.A-55
56.	13.12.2023	Statement of Account 0710083000000050	Ex.No.A-56

¶68

Schedule of Properties 2 Item

¶69

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 4640 Sq.ft along with residential building thereon bearing Door No. 120B in Ward No. 2 of Dhalavaipuram Panchayat admeasuring 2156.01 Sq. ft. (approx) along with all other constructions, improvements, easementary rights existing and appurtenant thereon situated in S No. 331/1, now new as per sub division S No. 331/1A, S.No. 333/2, now new S No. 333/2A, S No. 332/1, now new S No. 332/1P within Chettiyarpatti Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District and owned by Mr. K S Ramesh, more fully described in Partition Deed No.2315/2006 dated 30-11-2006 & Rectification Deed No. 1526/2013 dated 30-05-2013 both of Sub Registrar Office - Seithur and bounded on

¶70

East : Common pathway West : 1^st schedule North South common Wall North : East West common pathway South : Ramasundara Nadar East West Street

¶71

Measurement:

¶72

East West Both Sides : 58 feet South North Both Side : 80 feet (Extent of 4640 Sq Ft)

¶73

3^rd Item

¶74

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 5567.50 Sq.ft along with industrial building thereon bearing Door No. 120, 120R, 120B8, 120B10 in Ward No. 2 of Dhalavaipuram Panchayat admeasuring 3340.12 Sq. ft.

¶75

Page 11 of 26

¶76

OA No. 160/24

¶77

(approx) along with all other constructions, improvements, easementary rights existing and appurtenant thereon situated in S No. 331/1, now new as per sub division S No. 331/1A, S No. 333/2, now new S No. 333/2A within Chettiyarpatti Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District and owned by Mr.K.S.Ramesh, more fully described in Partition Deed No. 2315/2006 dated 30-11-2006 & Rectification Deed No. 1526/2013 dated 30-05-2013 both of Sub Registrar Office Seithur and bounded on

¶78

East : 2nd schedule building and north south common wall West : North South Street North : East West Common pathway South: K.S Senthilkumar Partition building

¶79

4^th Item

¶80

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 393 Cents (i.e. 101+86+6+58+142 Cents) along with industrial building thereon bearing Door No. 719, 918, 919, 920, 1334 in Kalangaperi Panchayat admeasuring 45137.70 Sq. ft. (approx) along with all other constructions, improvements, easementary rights existing and appurtenant thereon situated as (i) 101 Cents in S No. 51/3, (ii) 86 Cents in S No. 51/2 and 2/5^th right in the well, etc in S No. 50/2, (iii) 6 Cents on the southern side out of 6.61 Acres in S No. 53, (iv) 58 Cents in this north out of 95 Cents in S No. 52 & (v) 142 Cents on the north out of 6.61 Acres in S No. 53 within Arasiyarpatti Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District and owned by M/s. EKS Spinners Private Limited, more fully described in Sale Deed No. 1246/1997 dated 17-11-1997 & Sale Deed No. 291/1995 dated 20-03-1995 both of Sub Registrar Office- Keelarajakularaman and bounded on

¶81

(i) Boundaries of 101 Cents property

¶82

North : Wet land of Gurusamy Naicker etc South : Land of M/s. EKS Spinners Private Limited East : 2^nd Schedule property in Sale Deed No. 1246/1997 West : Road

¶83

(ii) Boundaries of 86 Cents property

¶84

North : Wet land of Gurusamy Naicker etc and Dry land of Guruvaiah Nadar South: Lands of M/s. EKS Spinners Private Limited and Kaniappa Nadar

¶85

Page 12 of 26

¶86

OA No. 160/24

¶87

East : Dry land of Guruvaiah Nadar West : 1^st Schedule property in Sale Deed No. 1246/1997

¶88

(iii) Boundaries of 6 Cents property

¶89

North : 1 Schedule property in Sale Deed No.1246/1997 South : Land of M/s. EKS Spinners Private Limited East : 1 Schedule property in Sale Deed No. 1246/1997 West : Road

¶90

(iv) Boundaries of 58 Cents property

¶91

North : Krishnama Raja Land South: Krishnama Raja, Ganesan Raja land East : 2^nd Schedule property in Sale Deed No. 291/1995 West : 2^nd Schedule property in Sale Deed No. 291/1995

¶92

(v) Boundaries of 142 Cents property

¶93

North : Krishnama Raja Land South: Krishnama Raja, Ganesan Raja land East : KaniappaNadar and Others land West : Mangammal Salai

¶94

Hypothecation of entire current Assets of the 1" defendant Company.

¶95

'B' Schedule

¶96

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 1890.625 Sq.Ft along with building thereon at Door No 203/1A, Kamaraj Nagar, Ward No 1 of Dhalavaipuram Panchayat and along with all other constructions, improvements, easementary rights existing and appurtenant thereon situated in Sy.No.337/7, 337/8, Punja Sy No 339/1B, New Sy No.339/1B8, New Sy No 339/1B9, within Chettiyarpatti Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District and owned by Mr.Ramesh K S more fully described in registered will Deed No 21/1992 dated 28.02.1992 and Deed of Rectification No 2509 of 2012 dated 12.07.2012 of sub Registrar Office - Seithur and bounded as per aforesaid title deed on

¶97

Page 13 of 26

¶98

OA No. 160/24

¶99

North : Mr. Thonthi Nadar House South : East West Street East : North South Street West : Mr. K.S Senthilkumar House.

¶100

4. The brief averments of the Reply Statement filed by the Defendant are as follows:-

¶101

The Defendants at the outset deny all the allegations and averments made in the Original Application filed by the Applicant Bank seeking for recovery of a total sum of Rs.11,16,62,613.24/-jointly and severally from the Defendants 1 to 9 in the OA and put the Applicant Bank to strict proof of all the allegations and averments made therein. The Applicant Bank has sought for the recovery of Rs. 11,16,62,613-24/- allegedly due from the 1^st defendant under various facilities. The allegation that the said total debt is secured by common mortgage is not supported by any document relied by the Applicant bank and as such the claim is misconceived and the OA is not maintainable on the said ground alone.

¶102

The Defendants states that the above OA is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the claims as put forth is not tenable in law and on facts. The Applicant has suppressed all material facts, documents relevant to the issues for consideration and has placed misleading facts. The Applicant Bank has joined causes of action and seeking to file a single OA in respect of different and distinct claims and securities. The pleadings put forth by the applicant are not supported by the documents filed and as a matter of fact the pleadings are contrary to the documents filed by the Applicant Bank, clearing amounting to misleading this Hon'ble Tribunal. The OA clearly suffers for misjoinder of causes of action and also misjoinder of parties. The joint and several liabilities pleaded and prayed as against the defendants is absolutely not tenable in law and on facts. As such the very basis of the claim by the Applicant Bank in the above O.A. is false, frivolous and on these grounds alone the O.A. is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs of these defendants.

¶103

The defendants denies all the allegations and averments contained in the applications as false save those that are specifically admitted herein, all the other allegations are specifically denied and the Applicant is put to strict proof of the each and every allegation.

¶104

Page 14 of 26

¶105

OA No. 160/24

¶106

The above application is not maintainable either on facts or in law and is liable to be dismissed against these defendants. The original application has not been signed, verified nor instituted by a person duly authorized and competent on behalf of the applicant. There are no documents or letter of authority filed or produced along with the application empowering him or authorizing him to sign, verify or institute the present original application/proceedings. The application deserves to fail on this short ground alone. Without prejudice to the objections, it is submitted that the original application has not been verified in accordance with law.

¶107

The original application is based on false, fabricated and manufactured documents. It is submitted that no cause of action is disclosed by the documents. The documents, which the applicant relies are fabricated, manufactured, cannot be allowed to be received as in evidence. The purported statement of accounts filed along with the original application is also wrong and a mere perusal of the same would go to show that the same has been prepared for the purpose of this case. The statement of account has not been maintained properly and not in accordance with law or as per the provisions of Bankers Book Evidence Act. The purported statement of accounts relied on by the applicant and a copy filed along with the original application clearly reveals that the same has not been maintained in the ordinary course of business of banking. No details have been filed, which it proves the falsity in the case and contentions of the applicant bank. The mandatory provisions of the Recovery of Debts Dues to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 and Rule 9 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 have not been complied with the applicant.

¶108

These defendants submit that there is no debt due or any amount, which is legally recoverable from the defendant. The break-up of the alleged balance has not been given.

¶109

The original application has neither been properly valued for the purpose of application fees nor has proper application fee been affixed on the original application. As such, there is no proper application before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶110

Without prejudice to the foregoing contentions and preliminary objections, it is submitted that the applicant has charged interest at exorbitant, excessive and usurious rates. The applicant is also seen to have claimed penal interest. The applicant is not entitled to either charge or claim

¶111

Page 15 of 26

¶112

OA No. 160/24

¶113

interest at the rates claimed in the present original application. According to the guidelines and directions of the Reserve Bank of India, interest at such exorbitant rates as charged and claimed by the applicant cannot be charged. The applicant cannot be allowed to charge such excessive rates and fanciful rates towards interest. In any event, without prejudice to the submissions made therein, this defendant had never agreed to rates of interest as charged and claimed by the applicant.

¶114

That even from perusal of the documents relied upon by the applicant, which are in any event disputed and denied, without prejudice to the said contentions, it is crystal clear that the applicant was, in any event, not entitled to charge or claim interest at quarterly rest or compound interest.

¶115

These defendants submit that the allegations made in original application are deliberately vague and the application is also guilty of suppression, breach of trust and total misrepresentation. All documents filed and relied upon by the applicant bank cannot be allowed to be received as evidence and are vitiated.

¶116

As in the usual practice with the applicant, no opportunity was given to peruse the documents before they were signed. Even the nature and contents of the documents were not explained. The applicant has taken complete advantage of its dominant position and has forced these defendants' sign in blank papers and unfilled forms.

¶117

It is submitted that the applicant has combined several accounts and filed a single O.A which is not maintainable under law. The applicant ought to have filed separate original applications

¶118

It is submitted that the bank has not been represented by the proper person though in the verification column it has been stated about power of attorney, but no such power of attorney has been filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶119

The Defendants further states that the Applicant Bank is bound to prove the averments made in the clauses under "Jurisdiction" and "Limitation" and the Defendants are not admitting any of the said facts. The Applicant Bank is put to strict proof of all such contentions to substantiate that this Hon'ble Tribunal has jurisdiction and the claim is within the period of limitation. Admittedly the Applicant bank has clubbed the facilities of the

¶120

Page 16 of 26

¶121

OA No. 160/24

¶122

Defendants without any nexus and is seeking to recover jointly and severally from all the defendants, which is not tenable in law and on facts.

¶123

It is submitted that the column III (A) in the main O.A is denied as unsustainable. The amount secured as stated is very low but in fact the value of the secured properties is more than Rs.15.00 Crores.

¶124

It is submitted that the column IV in the main O.A is denied as unsustainable. The application is barred by limitation more particularly in respect of the guarantors. Therefore no personal decree could be passed in respect of individuals and guarantors.

¶125

It is submitted that the Column-V i.e.. the facts of the case are all objected to. As can be seen from the averments in Para V (2) each defendants are having different entity and hence the single O.A against the defendants combining Partnership Firm and Private Limited Company is not maintainable and against law. Since all the defendants are borrowers and guarantors for each and every loan, the applicant is not entitled to file a single O.A. When the applicant bank while invoking recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act has issued four separate 13(2) demand notices and four separate 13(4) possession notices u/s.13(4) of the Act. Therefore the applicant bank ought to have filed four separate original applications.

¶126

The averments in Para V (1 to 4) are admitted.

¶127

The averments in Para V (5) are partially denied and the applicant is put to strict proof of same.

¶128

The averments in Para V (6 to 61) are all denied as unsustainable and the applicant is put to strict proof of the same. The Defendants denies the execution of the loan documents and other documents and the applicant is put to strict proof of the same. The Defendants never agreed for the penal interest at the rate of 2%. The Applicant bank obtained various signatures from the defendants in blank papers and prefilled forms and the defendants are put in dark for what purpose the same has been used by the applicant bank. It is incorrect to state that the defendants were irregular with repaying the loan amount. It is incorrect to state that the defendants failed to sign the renewal documents in spite of applicant bank approaching them. The date of classification of the loan account as NPA is wrong and the applicant bank has not followed the RBI Guidelines while classifying the

¶129

Page 17 of 26

¶130

OA No. 160/24

¶131

account as NPA. The applicant bank has not issued any recall notice before classifying the loan account as NPA as claimed in their OA. The applicant bank has already initiated recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act and therefore the applicant bank cannot file the present OA for the very same claims.

¶132

The averments in Para V (62 to 64) are denied as false and the applicant bank is put to strict proof of the same. The bank cannot claim the rate of interest at 15.40% with monthly rest for CCOL in 9.25% for ECLGS Loan. The defendants are not liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,16,62,613.24/- as claimed in the OA and the Applicant Bank is put to strict proof of the same. The defendants are not liable to pay the amount claimed and interest claimed in the above OA. The properties cannot be brought for sale.

¶133

The averments in the cause of action column are denied as false by the defendants and the applicant bank is put to strict proof of the same. There is no specific cause of action for the applicant bank to file the present OA before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶134

The amount claimed by the applicant bank in Para VI against the defendants for a sum of Rs.11,16,62,613.24/- is not true and no proper documents have been produced for the same and hence the defendants are not liable to pay the same. The applicant bank is not entitled to charge interest at the rate of Rs.15.40% with monthly rest with respective CCOL Loan and interest at 9.25% for ECLGS Loan and interest at 10.70% for term loan 1 and term loan - 2 facility and penal interest at the rate of 2% per annum.

¶135

The applicant bank is not entitled for any interim relief and for any reliefs as short in Para VII in the original application and as such the OA liable to be dismissed.

¶136

It is submitted that the applicant bank failed to consider the fact that the 1^st defendant company has serviced several lakhs of amounts as interest and crores of amount towards repayment of the loan amount from the date of sanction and the applicant bank failed to consider the long term relationship with the bank.

¶137

It is submitted that all the guarantees are specifically denied and hence the applicant bank has to prove the same with suitable documents.

¶138

Page 18 of 26

¶139

OA No. 160/24

¶140

It is submitted that in any event the OA is not maintainable under law and in facts and hence liable to be dismissed with cost.

¶141

The defendants reserve their right to file additional reply statement if necessary at the time of arguments.

¶142

It is therefore prayed before this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the applicant bank made in the above O.A and dismiss the above said original application with exemplary cost and thus render justice.

¶143

5. Defendant filed Counter Proof Affidavit on 15.05.25 with the same contentions raised in the Reply Statement while denying all the loan documents and the contents and the rate of interest.

¶144

6. The matter stood over to this day for consideration and after due deliberations, the following order is passed by this Tribunal.

¶145

7. On the basis of the above pleading the following issues have been framed

¶146

(i) Whether this case is maintainable:

¶147

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action:

¶148

(iii) Whether this case is barred by the limitations:

¶149

(iv) Whether the applicant has been able to prove his case

¶150

(v) Whether the applicant is entitled for any relief as claimed for:

¶151

Issue No. (iv),(v) :-

¶152

Having heard the parties and gone through the affidavit of the applicant and the documents filed by them and also considering the submission of the counsel for the Applicant, I find that the Applicant Bank, in order to prove its claim, has filed Proof Affidavit executed by one Mr.R.Venkatachalam, who is the Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶153

He has stated in his affidavit that the defendants had availed CCOL (Cash Credit Open Loan), ECLGS (Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme), Term Loan-I, Term Loan-II from the Applicant Bank, but they failed to pay the outstanding loan amount, hence he has filed the case. The applicant bank has also filed the documents given by the defendants at the

¶154

Page 19 of 26

¶155

OA No. 160/24

¶156

time of sanctioning the loan amount, which have been marked as exhibits No.A-01 to A-56 in support of its claim in the OA.

¶157

On a careful consideration of facts and evidence on record, it is observed that the Original Application has been filed against the Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.10,71,38,613.24p i.e. (i) All the defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,99,27,908.48p with interest at the rate of 15.40% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. in respect of CCOL

¶158

¶159

¶160

(iv) 6^th , & 7^th defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.23,49,001.39p with interest at the rate of 10.70% p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest at the rate of 2%p.a. on Rs.23,39,785.39p in respect of Term Loan-II from the date of Application till the date of realization with cost. The Applicant Bank has also filed the Proof Affidavit and the documents have been duly marked as Ex. No. A-01 to Ex. No.A-56 and taken on record.

¶161

(i) While admitting the availment of the subject loans from the Bank, the defendants contended that the said total debt of the loan is secured by common mortgage but the applicant bank has stated that all the loans are secured by separate mortgage and it is not supported by any document relied by the Applicant bank and as such the claim is misconceived. I have perused the document filed by the applicant bank and I find that the subject loans were sanctioned after getting seperate MODTD on 10.06.2019, 26.06.2019 which is proved by EX.No.A-13, EX.No.A-45 and Supplemental MODTD on 26.12.2019 produced herewith as EX.No.A-20. Hence I find that the debt is secured by separate Mortgage and have the contention of the defendant is not acceptable and not proved.

¶162

I also find that while admitting the availment of the subject loans from the Bank, the defendant contended that this Original Application has been filed which suffers from misjoinder of cause of action and misjoinder of

¶163

Page 20 of 26

¶164

OA No. 160/24

¶165

parties. The joint and several liabilities pleaded is not accepting in law it is also contended that this OA has been filed by a person who was not authorized to file this application and Mandatory provisions have not been complied, no debt due recoverable and Statement of accounts filed is wrong, and interest charged at exorbitant, excessive rates and hence the Applicant bank is not entitled to charge or claim interest at quarterly rest or compound interest and without explaining the contents the Applicant Bank obtained signatures on blank documents.

¶166

From the documents and evidence, I find that the subject loans were sanctioned vide Sanction letter, Hypothecation Agreement, Credit facility Agreement for operating loan accounts and Term Loan, which contains various terms and conditions of loans, repayment schedule and rate of interest besides documents to be executed also specified. It was acknowledged by the defendants. Thereafter the defendants executed the loan documents Ex. No. A-01 to Ex. No. A-44. If the terms of Agreement are not acceptable, then the defendants ought to have not signed the loan / security documents. Nothing prevented them from getting the contents of sanction and loan documents from the bank officials or from others. The defendants are capable of understanding the matters and gets the things done. Further, the sanction letter and the loan documents stipulated the rate of interest. So, the defendants are bound to pay the interest as agreed under the contract. Under these circumstances, these contentions are not tenable. Further I relied on the following citation which demonstrate that the loan documents are binding on them.

¶167

(a) It has already been decided in a case Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Green Rubber Industries “AIR 1990 SC 699” that “A person who signs a printed documents containing the terms of agreement is bound by them and it is not a defense that he has not read the terms or that he was ignorant of the legal effect. An agreement in the standard form of contract on which conditions are fixed by one of the parties in advance and or open to acceptance by any one, when executed is valid”.

¶168

(b) 2010 (4) CTC 856 – The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the borrower having signed the loan documents with open eyes cannot later contend that the interest charged is unconscionable and is liable to pay interest as agreed to be paid by him.”

¶169

Page 21 of 26

¶170

OA No. 160/24

¶171

(ii) The other contention that Statement of Accounts is not correct and has not been maintained in the ordinary course of business of banking. I find that the Applicant Bank filed the Statement of Accounts vide Ex. No. A-53 to A-56 for all the loans and I find that the said accounts are maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the Bank.

¶172

(iii) The evidence brought on record by the applicant bank established the claim of the Bank over the Defendant and also its charge over the scheduled properties. It is evident that the defendant borrowed the amounts and executed the loan and security documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. It is seen from the records that the Defendant had not submitted any proof either to dislodge or to disprove the case of the bank.

¶173

(iv) Therefore, keeping in view of the facts, particulars, the material documents read with the Proof Affidavit filed and arguments of the Applicant Bank and the defendant, I am of the considered view that the Applicant Bank has been fully able to prove this case in his favor. Accordingly Issue No.(iv) & (v) are decided in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶174

Issue No.(i), (ii) & (iii):-

¶175

From perusal of records I find that the cause of action for the present application arose on 29.03.2019, when the Applicant bank initially sanctioned the loan to the 1^st defendant company and issued sanction intimation letter to the defendants. On 29.03.2019 when the 1^st defendant had borrowed the amount and executed DPN and connected documents in favor of the applicant bank when the 2^nd to 9^th defendants had executed guarantee documents in favor of the applicant bank, on 10.06.2019 when the 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th , 8^th defendants deposited the original Title deeds and created equitable mortgage in favor of the applicant bank over the schedule properties and executed registered Registered Memorandum of deposit of Title deeds in favor of the Applicant bank and further on 26.12.2019 when the defendants had executed renewal documents for the adhoc facility availed, on 26.12.2019 when the 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th , 8^th defendants had executed Supplementary Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds in favor of the Applicant bank, On 05.05.2020, 11.06.2020 and on 14.09.2020 when the defendants had executed renewal documents and acknowledgement of debt. On 03.07.2020, 08.06.2022 & 21.11.2022 when the applicant bank had partially discharged securities, On 31.03.2022 & 07.10.2023 when the

¶176

Page 22 of 26

¶177

OA No. 160/24

¶178

applicant bank classified the loan accounts of the defendants as NPA. All transactions took place at Rajapalayam District, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and this case has been filed on 30.12.2023 so this case is filed within the limitation period.

¶179

In view of the above facts and circumstances and also in view of the above discussion this case is maintainable and has valid cause of action. I find that the Applicant has been fully able to prove his case. As such the Applicant is entitled for relief as prayed for. Accordingly this Issue No (i),(ii) & (iii) are also decided in favour of Applicant Bank. So i find that bank has proved his case in his favor. Accordingly Applicant Bank is entitled for relief as claimed for.

¶180

IA NO.2972 OF 2024 (ABJ Petition) was heard in the presence of counsel for the Applicant

¶181

The petitioner submits that the above original application has been filed for recovery of sum of Rs 11,16,62,613.24p with subsequent interest and cost on the mortgages created by the respondents. It is submitted that the value of the secured properties are Rs.6,54,07,800/- only at the time of filing this Original Application, on the date of filing this Original Application, the unsecured debt is Rs.4,52,54,813.24p

¶182

Further it is submitted that the respondents/2, 4th 6th & 8th Defendants are owner of the property described in the schedule in the petition and they are guarantors of the loan obtained by the 1" Defendant. As the loan accounts of the respondents and other defendants become irregular, the Applicant Bank took steps to recover the same. The respondents had not given any security to the above loan in favour of the Applicant Bank. As such, this loan is unsecured. Now the Applicant Bank is taking steps to recover the loan amounts from the respondents by way of filing this original application. However, the respondents, who came to know about the actions of this Applicant Bank, with intent to delay or to avoid and to obstruct the execution of final order from this Honorable Court, about to dispose and sell the Schedule Property to third parties or to create encumbrance over the same by executing some deeds over it.

¶183

Further it is submitted that the Applicant Bank came to know about action of the respondents from the persons who are dealing with them. If the respondents are allowed to dispose, sell or create encumbrance over the

¶184

Page 23 of 26

¶185

OA No. 160/24

¶186

petition schedule property, then there is no possibility to the Applicant Bank to recover the amount from the respondents, which they claimed through the original application. In this circumstance, it is necessary to direct the respondents to furnish security for the amount claimed in the original application with cost as stipulated by this Honorable Court and in the event of failure, pass an Order of Attachment Before Judgment of the petition schedule properties. Further it is submitted that if this petition is not allowed, the Applicant Bank will be put into irreparable loss and hardship.

¶187

Hence, petitioner prayed for :

¶188

(i) IA NO.2972/2024: To grant an order of attachment before judgement of the properties of the respondent/2^nd ,4^th ,6^th ,8^th defendant mentioned in the Schedule of the petition in favour of the petition Bank till pending disposal of the OA. 2. Having heard the arguments of Applicant bank and after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that, the Applicant bank has filed this ABJ Petition vide IA.No.2972/2024 to attach the properties mentioned in the schedule of the petition as the Mortgaged property is not sufficient to satisfy the loan amount. I also find that the Applicant bank has filed this OA claiming an amount of Rs.10,71,38,613.24p from the defendants as he has failed to repay the said amount. The Applicant Bank has also mentioned in the O.A. the schedule of immovable properties. Further the Applicant bank has not filed the recent valuation report of the Mortgaged property mentioned in the Schedule of the O.A. rather he has stated that the valuation of the mortgaged properties is Rs.6,54,07,800/- only at the time of filing of this O.A. but he has also not filed any valuation report to this effect to satisfy this Tribunal that the value of Mortgaged property is not sufficient to satisfy the outstanding amount.

¶189

Accordingly, this petition is hereby stands rejected. However the applicant has proved this O.A. in his favour.

¶190

So far the rate of interest is concerned, it is a well settled Law that the Tribunal has got powers to award pendente lite interest in view of the Judgment of the “ Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.M. Veerapa Vs Canara Bank (reported in AIR 98(1), 1101 & in Central bank of India Vs Ravindra and OS (AIR, 2001(1), 3095) ” and as per the Applicant Bank Agreement norms.

¶191

Page 24 of 26

¶192

OA No. 160/24

¶193

So far the penal interest is concerned Hon'ble supreme court stated in the said judgement as followed " Though interest can be capitalised on the anology that the interest falling due on the accrued date and remaining unpaid, partakes the character of amount advanced on that date, yet penal interest, which is charged by way of penalty for non payment, cannot be capitalized. Further interest, i.e interest on interest, whether simple, compound or penal, cannot be claimed on the amount of penal interest. Penal interest cannot be capitalized. It will be opposed to public policy ".

¶194

In view of the above Judgement and also in the light of Loan Document, Revised DPN 14 A with minimum interest Clause it is hereby

¶195

ORDERED

¶196

(a) That the Defendants are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.10,71,38,613.24p i.e. (i) All the defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,99,27,908.48 with interest at the rate of 15.40%p.a with half yearly rests in respect of CCOL

¶197

(ii) 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th , 6^th , & 8^th defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,77,041.71p with interest at the rate of 9.25% p.a with half yearly rests in respect of ECLGS

¶198

(iii) 6^th , & 7^th defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.23,84,661.66p with interest at the rate of 10.70% p.a with half yearly rests in respect of Term Loan-I

¶199

(iv) 6^th , & 7^th defendants personally/jointly/severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.23,49,001.39p with interest at the rate of 10.70% p.a with half yearly rests in respect of Term Loan-II from the date of filing of Application till the date of realization with cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶200

(b) In case of default of payment by the above mentioned Defendants, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell the movable / immovable properties more fully described in Schedule of the original application for appropriation of sale proceeds towards the satisfaction of amount due to the Applicant Bank.

¶201

Page 25 of 26

¶202

OA No. 160/24

¶203

(c) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, after defraying the expenses of such sale, for the payment of all such amounts, the defendants are jointly/severally liable to pay the amount of such deficiency with interest mentioned above until realization.

¶204

(d) Any amount remitted during the course of this proceedings shall be given due credit, to the loan account of the defendants.

¶205

(e) Recovery Certificate be prepared, as per the directions given above, and issue accordingly. A copy of the order is to be communicated to the parties concerned, immediately.

¶206

(f) It is further ordered that the Applicant Bank shall file cost memo within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, so as to prepare the recovery certificate with cost for the CCOL, ECLGS, Term loan-I, Term loan-II and the Recovery Officer is also directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In case, cost memo is not filed before said period of one month, Recovery Certificate will be prepared with available records.

¶207

Dictated to T.P, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 28^th July, 2025.

¶208

Sd/-

¶209

(SEEMA SINHA) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶210

Uploaded on 08.08.2025

¶211

Page 26 of 26

South Indian Bank v. Eks Spinners Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Indian Bank v. Eks Spinners Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus R Muthusamy Prop. Sri Rajaganapathi Hardwares

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M Manikandan Prop. Sri Sakthi Saravana Timbers

Sss Sakthi Industry versus Fullerton India Credit Company Limited

B Dinesh versus Indian Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus v Ramya Prop. Sakthi Saravana Traders

State Bank of India versus Activ Ingredients