Allowed

Syndicate Bank v. M/S Sri Krishnaa Techno System

DRT19 May 2025TA/132/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Canara Bank to recover dues totaling Rs.43,42,971.55 p along with interest from M/s. Sri Krishnaa Techno System and Mrs. V. Lakshmi under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, as the respondents appeared ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of the application to recover a sum of Rs.43,42,971.55 p with interest, plus penal interest and costs, enabling the bank to sell assets for recovery.

Syndicate Bank versus M/S Sri Krishnaa Techno System — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 132 of 2023

¶2

19.05.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 19^th day of May, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 132 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA 958/2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No 132 of 2023)

¶9

*Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) Mylapore Branch No.27/28, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager

¶10

….Applicant

¶11

Amended vide order dated 22.03.2022 in view of merger

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

M/s. Sri Krishnaa Techno System

¶14

Rep. by Proprietrix, Mrs. V. Lakshmi, No.78, 7^th Street, Kambar Nagar, Jawahar Nagar Post, Kolathur,

¶15

Chennai – 600 082

¶16

Also at:

¶17

M/s. Sri Krishnaa Techno System Rep. by Proprietrix, Mrs. V. Lakshmi, No.37, Sathyavathi Nagar, 3^rd Street, Padi, Chennai – 600 050

¶18

Also at:

¶19

M/s. Sri Krishnaa Techno System Rep. by Proprietrix, Mrs. V. Lakshmi, No.58, 3^rd Main Road, 5^th Street, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 058

¶20

Mrs. V. Lakshmi, W/o. Mr. R. Babu No.78, 7^th Street, Kambar Nagar, Jawahar Nagar Post, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 082 …..Defendants

¶21

T.A. No. 132 of 2023

¶22

¶23

19.05.2025

¶24

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶25

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K.V. Subramanian Associatez

¶26

Defendants were set ex-parte on 18.08.2023

¶27

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶28

This original application is filed on 23.10.2019 by erstwhile Syndicate Bank (since merged with Canara Bank) 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 jointly and severally for recovery of a total sum of Rs.43,42,971.55p (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy One and Fifty Five Paise Only) due in respect of SOD SyndMSE Loan (A/c No.60151400000021) together with further compound interest thereon @ 17.55% p.a., with monthly rests, plus penal interest @ 2% p.a., from the date of application till the date of realization in full and for costs of this application.

¶29

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.958 of 2019, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.958 of 2019 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.132 of 2023.

¶30

T.A. No. 132 of 2023

¶31

¶32

19.05.2025

¶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 Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶35

It is the case of the Applicant Bank that the 1^st Defendant represented by the 2^nd Defendant is the Borrower herein. The 1^st Defendant is a proprietorship concern, represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. V. Lakshmi, the 2^nd Defendant herein, on 31.08.2015 submitted an Application for Working Capital facility and thus requested for sanction of loan of Rs.36,00,000/-. Based on the representation made by these Defendants, on 31.08.2015, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a SOD Synd MSE Loan of Rs.36,00,000/- and thus 2^nd Defendant executed the following loan documents.

¶36

a. Composite Hypothecation Agreement duly singed and executed by the 1^st Defendant represented by the 2^nd Defendant on 31.08.2015.

¶37

b. Anneure-1 – Agreement executed by the 1^st Defendant represented by the 2^nd Defendant on 31.08.2015.

¶38

c. Letter of Authority executed by the 1^st Defendant represented by the 2^nd Defendant on 31.08.2015.

¶39

T.A. No. 132 of 2023

¶40

19.05.2025

¶41

¶42

It is submitted by Applicant Bank that after availing the said facility, the defendants deliberately failed to repay the loan amount availed in spite of repeated demands and reminders by Applicant Bank. As defendants miserably failed to make repayments in the aforesaid loan account, the applicant bank classified the aforesaid loan account as NPA (Non-Performing Assets) on 13.09.2018, as per the guidelines issued by the RBI. Further, the Legal Notice was also issued on 17.11.2018. All efforts taken by the applicant bank to recover the dues resulted in futility. Hence, this Original Application (OA) has been filed to recover the dues from the defendants.

¶43

After the filing of the OA, Summons were sent to Defendants 1 and 2 through Registered Post with Acknowledgement due, which was duly served to D1 and D2. When OA was taken up on 18.08.2023 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, defendants were placed ex-parte on 18.08.2023.

¶44

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the records.

¶45

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Mr. T. Sivaprasad, Chief Manager 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-7 . 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.

¶46

T.A. No. 132 of 2023

¶47

19.05.2025

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

: O R D E R :

¶51

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶52

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants a sum of total sum of Rs.43,42,971.55p (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy

¶53

One and Fifty Five Paise Only) due in respect of SOD SyndMSE Loan (A/c No.60151400000021) together with further compound interest thereon @ 17.55% p.a., with monthly rests, plus penal interest @ 2% p.a., from the date of application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

¶54

(b) In the event of failure of the defendants to pay the aforesaid amount, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the personal assets / hypothecated assets of the 2^nd defendant (both movable and immovable) to recover the outstanding dues as required under law, for which the 2^nd Defendant to disclose to the Tribunal particulars of other properties or assets owned by

¶55

T.A. No. 132 of 2023

19.05.2025

the 2^nd Defendant;

(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 defendants 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.

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

(Dictated to Steno (Sudhakar), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 19^th day of May, 2025)

¶65

T.A. No. 132 of 2023

19.05.2025

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶70

AW-1: Mr. T. Sivaprasad, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	Application from 1^stDefendant represented by the 2^ndDefendant for working capital facility for Rs.36,00,000/-dated 31.08.2015	A-1
2.	Sanction Letter issued by the Applicant Bank dated 31.08.2015	A-2
3.	Composite Hypothecation Agreement executed by the 1^stDefendant represented by the 2^nd Defendant dated 31.08.2015	A-3
4.	Annexure-I Agreement executed by the 1^st Defendant represented by the 2^ndDefendant dated 31.08.2015	A-4
5.	Letter of Authority executed by the 1^stDefendant represented by the 2^nd Defendant dated 31.08.2015	A-5
6.	Legal Notices sent to the Defendants by the Counsel of the Applicant Bank dated 17.11.2018	A-6
7.	Statement of Account – SOD Synd MSE – A/c No. 60151400000021	A-7

¶73

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶74

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶75

:- SCHEDULE -:

¶76

NIL

¶77

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

Syndicate Bank v. M/S Sri Krishnaa Techno System

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syndicate Bank v. M/S Sri Krishnaa Techno System

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd.

S R Mohan versus State Bank of India

S Managaleswaran versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Legge Footwear Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Radhika

Indian Overseas Bank versus Alco Inspections Rep by Prop a Kathiravan and Another