Allowed

Deutsche Bank Ag v. M/S. Eminent Services and Solutions

DRT19 May 2026OA/340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate under the RDB Act. The bank proved a loan facility availed by the defendants was outstanding. The court awarded labor of Rs.25,42,357.32 plus interest at 14% p.a. simple.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.25,42,357.32 plus interest at 14% p.a. simple from the date of filing of the application till realisation.

Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/S. Eminent Services and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 19^th day of May, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA No.340 of 2023

¶5

The Deutsche Bank AG Presently Having business at 4-4A, Western Tower, Sunny Side Ground Floor, Shafi Mohammed Road Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 Represented by its Authorized Representative Mr. Trivikram Singh

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Eminent Services and Solutions Represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. P. Vijayalakshmi DP-III (SP) F-18A, 1/F, 5^th Street Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai – 600 058

¶9

Mrs. P. Vijayalakshmi A13-3, Ruby Elite Apartments Velachery Main Road, Santhoshapuram Chennai – 600 073

¶10

U. Hema Abilash A13-3, Ruby Elite Apartments Velachery Main Road, Santhoshapuram Chennai – 600 073 …Defendants

¶11

Counsels on Record / Appeared

¶12

Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s Sai Krishnan Associates Defendants ex-parte on 24.01.2024

¶13

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants’ seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,42,357.32p together with interest at the rate of 19% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the application till the date of realisation along with costs of the application.

¶16

The subject matter of the case is Unsecured Business Installment Loan availed by the defendants from the Applicant Bank.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants approached the respondent bank vide Loan Application dated 08.01.2020 for grant of Unsecured Business Loan and the respondent considering the said request vide its sanction dated 21.01.2020 sanctioned a credit facility of Rs.25,00,000/- and the defendants executed loan agreement, declaration of cheques and Demand Promissory Note on 22.01.2020. It is also the case of the applicant that the said amount was repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.91,640/- commencing from 5.2.2020 to 05.01.2023.

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that the borrowers were highly irregular in repayment and failed to regularize the loan account despite repeated

¶19

¶20

demands and hence the loan account was classified as NPA. It is further stated that as the defendants did not come forward to clear the outstanding dues, the applicant issued legal notice on 21.04.2022 requesting the defendants to clear the outstanding dues but in vain. Hence the present application is filed for recovery of its dues.

¶21

Summons was taken out to the defendants returned unserved and hence were served with notice by way of substituted service by causing paper publication. As there was no representation for the defendants continuously and on 24.01.2024, they were set ex-parte on that day. Applicant Bank filed Proof Affidavit along with 8 documents, which were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-8 on 30.05.2024. The Ld. Counsel for Applicant Bank made his submissions on 13.03.2026 and thereafter the matter stood till this date for passing final orders.

¶22

The following issues arise for consideration in the matter: -

¶23

(a) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendants?

¶24

(b) What order as to cost of the proceedings need be passed?

¶25

These issues are considered together.

¶26

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal.

¶28

The evidence of the applicant is led by AW1 who produced the documents Exhibit A-1 to A-8 along with the proof affidavit. The documents produced in evidence are all found admissible. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the OA claim against the defendants. Further, the statement of accounts in respect of the loan account produced and certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, clearly indicates that the amount claimed by the applicant is due from the defendants. It is clear from the statement of accounts that penal interest is not capitalized.

¶29

In view of the foregoing, it is clearly evident that the application filed by the applicant bank is well within the period of limitation and this Tribunal possesses the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this OA.

¶30

In view of the fact that the loan facility availed by the defendants is a Cash Credit facility and loan for its business and the applicant has claimed

¶31

¶32

interest at contractual rate till the date of filing of the OA, this Tribunal is of the view that the pendente lite interest can be awarded at reduced rates.

¶33

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, OA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶34

(a) OA No.340 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶35

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate sum of Rs.25,42,357.32p with further interest @14% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendants jointly and severally after deducting all the amounts received / realized by them during the pendency of OA and also by selling the other assets of the defendants.

¶36

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants 2 and 3 are personally liable for all such amounts due as ordered above.

¶37

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶38

¶39

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

¶42

Rules, 1993.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶45

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 19^th day of May, 2026)

¶46

EXHIBITS MARKED BY APPLICANT BANK

¶47

S. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Nos.
1.	08.01.2020	Loan Application Form	A-1
2.	21.01.2020	Sanction Letter	A-2
3.	22.01.2020	Loan Agreement	A-3
4.	21.04.2022	Legal Notice	A-4
5.	29.04.2022	Returned cover of the legal notice with respect to 1^stdefendant	A-5
6.	28.04.2022	Returned cover of the legal notice with respect to 2^nddefendant	A-6
7.	28.04.2022	Returned cover of the legal notice with respect to 3^rddefendant	A-7
8.	31.10.2022	Statement of Accounts	A-8

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶50

¶51

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

¶52

NIL

¶53

SD/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶54

Deutsche Bank Ag v. M/S. Eminent Services and Solutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deutsche Bank Ag v. M/S. Eminent Services and Solutions

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. E. Vinay Kumar

S Natarajan versus State Bank of India

Mrs Sujatha Rajkumar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Real Deal Electronic India Ltd.

Poovai Amman Avency and Others versus City Union Bank Limited

Sujatha Kumaravel versus State Bank of India