Allowed

Indian Bank v. Ms Abo Autocom

DRT4 May 2026OA/72/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application filed by Indian Bank under the RDB Act for recovery of a substantial loan amount, the DRT-III, Chennai addressed the defendant's contentions regarding interest calculations, document execution, and the affidavit of the statement of accounts. The court rejected the defence of void signatures and lack of proper sitting, allowing the application and ordering the defendant t

What did the court decide?

The Original Application is allowed. The defendant is ordered to pay Rs. 1,56,26,565/- along with contractual interest with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest from the date of application till reali

Indian Bank versus Ms Abo Autocom — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶2

04.05.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of May, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 72 of 2022

¶8

Indian Bank, Padi branch, Represented by its Assistant General Manager No.97, 1^st Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Padi,

¶9

Chennai-600 058 ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s.ABO Autocom, Represented by its proprietor, Mr. PV.Theenadayalan SS-2, New No.3, SIDCO Industrial Estate, North Phase Korattur, Chennai-600 098 …..Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant: M/s. Saravana Prakash. S

¶14

Counsel for Defendant: M/s. Arunai Associates

¶15

: - FINAL ORDER- :

¶16

This Original Application is filed on 24.09.2021 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 defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,56,26,565/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Six Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Five only) repayable together with contractual interest ratewith monthly rests plus penal interest of 2% from the date of Application till the date of realization in full, for sale of

¶17

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶18

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶19

¶20

04.05.2026

¶21

scheduled mentioned hypothecated assets and for costs of this OA.

¶22

Brief Facts of the case:

¶23

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.

¶24

3. Brief Facts of the case:

¶25

3.1 It is the case of the Applicant Bank that the defendant M/s ABO AUTOCOM (formerly AB AUTOCOM) represented by its proprietor Mr.P.V.Theenadayalan, an existing borrower of bank was sanctioned with the Term Loan facility to the tune of Rs.20,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) and Open Cash Credit facility for Working Capital to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) vide Sanction Letter dated 23.04.2011 under Loan account No.966894329 for the MTL and under loan account number 778886220 for the OCC.

¶26

3.2 It is submitted by the applicant bank that the defendant had accordingly executed necessary loan documents such as Demand Promissory Note, Term Loan Agreement and Agreement for Hypothecation of Movables dated 05.05.2011. The defendant agreed to pay interest towards the loan facility at 14.50% p.a.at BRR prevailing from time to time. The defendant executed Acknowledgment of Debt cum Security dated 13.03.2013.

¶27

3.3 The applicant submitted submits that the defendant was sanctioned

¶28

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶29

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶30

¶31

04.05.2026

¶32

with fresh Term Loan facility for a sum of Rs.37,98,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand only) vide Sanction Letter dated 06.01.2014 under the loan Account No.6191651530 and the defendant agreed to repay the same with interest rate at 15.70% p.a. at prevailing from time to time. Accordingly, the defendant had executed necessary loan agreements such as Demand Promissory Note, Term Loan Agreement and Hypothecation Agreement dated 17.01.2014. The defendant executed Acknowledgement of Debt cum Security dated 11.07.2014 and 16.07.2015.

¶33

3.4 It is submitted by the applicant bank that the defendants existing OCC account under loan account number 778886220 was restricted and the excess in Working Capital was converted to Term Loan under the Flood Relief Proposal dated 30.01.2016 and the excess Working Capital lying in the OCC account as on that date viz, Rs.4,66,327/- was converted into Term loan under account number 6406168653. The defendant had executed Letter for Conversion dated 30.01.2016.

¶34

3.5 The applicant submits that the defendant had approached the branch to renew the existing term loans and OCC facility apart from availing fresh term loan to the tune of Rs.11,40,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakh forty thousand only) and the same was sanctioned under the loan account number 6485044690 vide sanction ticket dated 28.09.2016 with an interest rate at 13.45% p.a.at BRR prevailing from time to time. The defendant agreed for the same and executed the demand promissory note term loan agreement and agreement of hypothecation of movables dated

¶35

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶36

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶37

04.05.2026

¶38

¶39

01.12.2016. The defendant had acknowledged his debts vide executing acknowledgment of debt cum security dated 01.12.2016.

¶40

3.6 The applicant submits that the defendant was sanctioned with a sum of Rs.27,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand only) towards fresh Term Loan vide Sanction Ticket dated 15.09.2017 under the Term Loan Account No.6565292702 at 11.25% rate of interest PA at BRR prevailing from time to time. The defendant agreed for the same and executed the Demand Promissory Note, Term Loan Agreement and Agreement of Hypothecation of Movables dated 01.12.2016. The defendant had acknowledged the debts by executing Acknowledgment of Debt cum Security dated 18.09.2017.

¶41

3.7 It is submitted by the applicant bank that the defendant request for sanctioning Term loan for purchase of plant and machinery was acceded by the bank vide Sanction Ticket dated 22.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.58,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakh only) under the Term Loan account 6688310267 and the defendant agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 11.50% at BRR prevailing from time to time for which he executed the necessary loan documents dated 24.10.2018.

¶42

3.8 The applicant further submits that the defendant was sanctioned with an Enhancement of OCC loan to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) in the account number 778886220 vide Sanction Ticket dated 30.09.2019 with an interest rate at 11.25% at BRR prevailing from time to time. The defendant executed the DPN, Agreement for OCC and Hypothecation of movables dated 30.09.2019. The debts were also

¶43

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶44

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶45

04.05.2026

¶46

¶47

acknowledged by the defendant vide Acknowledgment of Debt cum Security dated 30.09.2019.

¶48

3.9 It is the further case of the applicant bank that the defendant was sanctioned with Funded Interest Term Loan to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) vide Sanction Ticket dated 26.02.2020 under the loan account number 6863471849 with an interest rate at 8.25% PA at BRR and defendant agreed to the same by executing the necessary loan documents dated 26.02.2020. The debts were also acknowledged by the defendant vide Acknowledgment of Debt cum Security dated 26.02.2020.

¶49

3.10 The applicant submits that the defendant was further sanctioned with IND GECLS-Covid-10 loan to the tune of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs only) under the Term Loan dated 05.06.2020 and the same was availed by the defendant by executing necessary loan documents dated 08.06.2020.

¶50

3.11 The applicant submits that the loans extended to the defendant from the year 2011 till date were renewed from time to time by the defendant, by executing necessary letter of Acknowledgement of Debt and the latest being 08.06.2020.

¶51

3.12 It is submitted that the loan availed by the defendant with the sanction details together with the date of loan documents are tabulated as under:

¶52

S.N	Sanctioned	Product-Account	DPN date	Amount
o	Date	number

¶53

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶54

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶55

04.05.2026

¶56

¶57

1A	23.04.2011	Medium Term 966894329	loan	05.05.2011	202500.00
1B	23.04.2011	Open cash 778886220	credit	05.05.2011	500000.00
2	06.01.2014	Medium term 6191651530	loan	17.01.2014	3798000.00
3	30.01.2016	Conversion 6406168653	WC-TL	05.05.2011	466327.00
4	28.09.2016	Medium term 6485044690	loan	01.12.2016	1140000.00
5	15.09.2017	Medium Term 6565292702	loan	13.09.2017	2710000.00
6	22.10.2018	Medium Term 6688310267	loan	24.10.2018	5800000.00
7	30.09.2019	Enhancement of cash credit 77888	open 6220	30.09.2019	5000000.00
8	26.02.2020	Funded Interest loan 6863471849	term	26.02.2020	1750000.00
9	05.06.2020	Ind Geels Co 6884802062	vid-19	08.06.2020	2400000.00

¶58

3.13 The applicant submits that after availing the credit facilities the defendant was irregular in repayment and servicing the loan extended by the applicant bank and inspite of repeated reminders, the defendant failed and neglected to regularize the same. In view of the default all the loan accounts were classified as Non-performing Asset (NPA) w.e.f 15.06.2021. The defendant also did not come forward to settle the dues in spite of several requests made by the applicant. Hence, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendant.

¶59

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶60

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶61

04.05.2026

¶62

¶63

4. WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT:

¶64

4.1 The defendant filed written statement contending that the applicant herein does not have a valid cause of action to sustain the above OA both in law and facts and hence the OA is liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendants submit that the pleadings in the above OA suffers from suppression of facts, misinterpretation and abreast with falsehood and tortuous presentation of facts and hence liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶65

4.2 It is further submitted that although the applicant bank has filed the above OA.72 of 2022 for recovery of Rs.1,56,26,565/- as on 21.09.2021 together with interest thereon with Contractual interest rate per annum, the applicant has not made out a prima facie case against the defendant.

¶66

4.3 It is contended that the rate of interest is also not as per RBI guidelines and the bank has not filed any circular to prove their claim. The statement of account is not as per law and as stated in several rulings of our Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the Apex court. The bank had not filed the interest rate circulars to support their claim as they have not calculated the interest as per their circulars. The bare reading of the statement of account has been capitalized which is against the settle law. The O.A is also silent about the certificate about the statement of accounts are on order and the interest calculation in the loan account is as per the policy of the bank and as agreed by the defendants.

¶67

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶68

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶69

¶70

04.05.2026

¶71

4.4 This defendant further submitted that the applicant had not whisper about the rate of interest charged at the inception of the allege loan transaction or the rate of interest at the inception of the allege loan transaction or the rate of interest at the time of filing in the above O.A. this fact will clearly show the applicant is not entitled for any claim as stated in the O.A.

¶72

4.5 The statement made in the original application by the bank is contradictory to one and another. The bank has stated that the account maintained by the defendant has become NPA in 15.05.2021 but however

¶73

the bank had taken so much time to file the above case before this Tribunal. The delay for filing the above case is also not explained properly.

¶74

4.6 The defendant further submits that the defendant denies the alleged execution of loan documents EM and the document as stated in the OA. The bare reading of documents filed by the bank clearly shows that they have not followed any rules as contemplated by their Head Office / Reserve Bank of India and the apex court. The rate of interest charged in the account is exorbitant without any basic document to tolerate the claim made by the bank. At no point of time this defendant was informed about the loan and nor the rate of interest charged in the account.

¶75

4.7 It is further submitted that the document filed are not authenticated and need to be looked into by this Tribunal as they have violated the law and the rules of Registration Act and Stamp Act. The defendant was given

¶76

to understand that the applicant bank (i.e the very same branch) filed more cases in the end of year 2020 and 2021 before this Tribunal and

¶77

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶78

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶79

¶80

04.05.2026

¶81

most of the cases they filed were term loan & Cash credit loans and their claim is against the innocent person where the covid-19 pandemic has washed out the industry. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the applicant bank deliberately doing this mistake without any hesitation.

¶82

4.8 It is contended that the applicant bank now claiming interest for 18.75%. The defendant states that on a bare reading of the OA and the documents filed along with the same no document was filed or any claim was made by the applicant bank with respect to current BPLR rate. Hence the claim of interest is vague and cannot be approved by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶83

4.9 The defendant further explained the reason for the NPA that the loan was taken for the Purpose of purchasing machineries and the said machine was initially running in good condition business also was going well and therefore the defendant has paid the interest and EMI to the applicant bank. Due to Covid-19 pandemic the applicant was unable to run the business regularly. Further one of the major machines was not working properly during the lockdown period due to closure of the business. Due to the said reason several good opportunities had been lost by the company. Therefore to rectify the same, the defendant requested the applicant bank by way of giving several fresh requests for ADHOC facilities of LC and working capital, but the same was not considered by the applicant bank. The above said genuine reasons are main cause for the NPA.

¶84

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶85

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶86

¶87

04.05.2026

¶88

4.10 Further, the defendant submit that no certificate has been filed by the applicant bank under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act. All the statements printed out from the computer was not correct and not proper. The statement of accounts available in OA of the typed set provided to the defendants it does not contain the mandatory certificate as provided for under section 8(a) of the said act. Hence the statement of account cannot be relied upon and taken into account in view of the above deficiency. The certificate must be issued by the principal accountant or branch manager and the person who is in charge of the computer system along with a brief description of computer. But the applicant did not produce certificate. The statement of account does not even contain the particulars or description of the computer system in which the data was stored which mandatory under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act.

¶89

4.11 It is further contended by the defendant that as per the available

¶90

statement of account it can be seen that the penal interest was also compounded with the principal amount and were subjected to interest on a monthly rest basis against the order of the apex court in the Central Bank of India-Vs- Ravindra and others. The defendant submits that there are no bonafides on the part of the applicant bank to file the application but with a malafide intention simply to harass the defendants they have filed the same.

¶91

4.12 This defendant submits that the applicant bank never gave the statement to account periodically. This defendant states that the applicant bank charges usurious interest and the claim now made in the above O.A.

¶92

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶93

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶94

04.05.2026

¶95

¶96

is not supported by the statement of accounts filed along with the O.A. As per the statement the claim never crossed 120 lakhs event on the alleged date of NPA (i.e. 15/06/2021) on the other hand the present claim in OA is around Rs.1,56,26,565/- which is not supported by any document.

¶97

4.13 It is further submitted that with intention to get a loan, this defendants had signed in the blank forms and papers as directed by the bank and now they partly filled the said blank forms and papers to suit them for claiming the amount in the above O.A. Hence the said filled blank forms shall not be taken as admirable evidence and taken into consideration for claiming the alleged amount.

¶98

4.14 The defendant submits that availability of bank credit without the hassles of Collaterals/ third party guarantees would be a major source of support to the first generation entrepreneurs to realize their dream of setting up a unit of their own Micro and Small Enterprise (MSE). Keeping

¶99

this objective in view, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium enterprises (MSME), Government of India launched Credit Guarantee Scheme (CGS) so as to strengthen credit delivery system and facilitate flow of credit to the MSE sector. To operationalize the scheme, Government of India and SIDBI set up the credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small enterprises (CGTMSE)

¶100

4.15 The defendant submitted that the main objective is that the lender should give importance to project viability and secure the credit facility purely on the primary security of the assets financed. The other objective is that the lender availing guarantee facility should endeavor to give

¶101

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶102

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶103

¶104

04.05.2026

¶105

composite credit to the borrowers so that the borrowers obtain both term loan and working capital facilities from a single agency. The credit Guarantee Scheme (CGS) seeks to reassure the lender that in the event of a MSE unit which availed collateral free credit facilities, fails to discharge its liabilities to the lender, the Guarantee trust would make good the loss incurred by the lender up to 75/80/85 percent of the credit facility.

¶106

4.16 The defendant submits that the lender should cover the eligible credit facilities as soon as they are sanctioned. In any case the lender should apply for guarantee cover in respect of eligible credits sanctioned in one calendar quarter latest by end of subsequent calendar quarter, Guarantee will commence from the date of payment of Guarantee fee and shall run will commence from the date of payment of guarantee fee and shall run through the agreed tenure of the term credit in case of term loans/composite loans and for a period of 5 years where working capital facilities alone are extended to borrowers or for such period as may be specified by the Guarantee trust in this behalf. In this scheme the applicant bank have debited the account for payment of CGTMSE cover, hence the applicant bank can recover the claim by availing the said cover. 4.17 The certificate available in the OA does not disclose who issued the certificate and under what authority. The certificate is not even signed by any competent person. The certificate must be issued by the principal accountant or branch manager and the person who is in charge of the computer system along with a brief description of computer. But the present certificate does not have signature of the branch manager or the

¶107

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶108

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶109

¶110

04.05.2026

¶111

principal accountant and the person in charge of the computer system. The certificate does not even contain the particulars or description of the computer system in which the data was stored which mandatory under the Banker’s Book evidence act.

¶112

4.18 It is further submitted that the statement of account filed along with the OA does not disclose breakup of interest they are claiming. No information regarding rate of interest and its relative period is mentioned. No one can understand the rate of interest charged in the statement of account. It is further submitted that adding fuel to the fire the applicant bank high handily charged penal interest for the above said period and that was also compounded monthly. The applicant bank has not produced any certificate in the OA. It is mandatory that a certificate must be issued by the principal accountant or branch manager and the person who is in charge of the computer system along with a brief description of computer.

¶113

The certificate should contain the particulars or descriptions of the computer system in which the data was stored which is mandatory under the Banker’s Book of Evidence Act.

¶114

4.19 It is submitted that since there is no valid mortgage as explained above and the acknowledgement of debt are fabricated one, the cause of action and limitation as claimed in the OA is not valid and binding in law and hence the OA is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action and limitation.

¶115

Heard the submissions of both the counsels and perused the

¶116

records.

¶117

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶118

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶119

04.05.2026

¶120

¶121

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Mr. M.M.K. Satyanarayana, Assistant General 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-55 .

¶122

Despite availing two adjournments, the defendants did not choose to file their Counter Proof Affidavit. Hence opportunity to file Counter Proof Affidavit was closed on 30.12.2022.

¶123

The defendants while admitting availing of loan and creation of mortgage, contended that the applicant bank did not provide proper statement of accounts to verify the veracity of its demand, as the same is not supported by proper certificate under Banker’s Book Evidence Act. Further, the bank has not filed the interest rate circulars to support their claim as the interest has not been calculated as per the circular. However, the defendants did not produce any statement showing the payments made by them to contradict the statement of account filed by the applicant bank. Further, the sanction letters dated 23.04.2011, 06.01.2014, 28.09.2016, 15.09.2017, 22.10.2018, 30.09.2019, 26.02.2020, 05.06.2020 are duly acknowledged by the defendant, in his capacity as Proprietor of M/s AB Autocom, wherein he had specifically agreed that the interest to be serviced as and when charged in the account. Having agreed to the interest rate charged / to be charged by the applicant bank, now defendant cannot take a different stand with regard to charging of interest.

¶124

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶125

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶126

04.05.2026

¶127

¶128

Further, the defendant in Medium Term Loan Agreement dated 05.05.2011 had specifically agreed at clause 6 that “ the borrower agrees that the bank is entitled to charge a higher rate of interest than the rate stated above and overdue / penal interest in case of default in paying the dues as per Reserve Bank of India directives / Bank rules and agrees to pay interest at such enhanced rates of interest. Borrower shall be deemed to have notice of change in the rate of interest whenever the changes in the Bank’s PLR / PTLR are displayed / notified at by the branch / published in newspaper / made through entry of interest charged in the pass book / statement of accounts sent to the borrower. Individual notice regarding the change of interest and charging of overdue interest is waived by the borrower”.

¶129

Having agreed for charging higher rate of interest and also penal interest in case of default and waiver of individual notice regarding change of interest and overdue interest at the time of availing the loan, the defendant cannot now take the same as a contention for the purpose of his case to suit his convenience. Hence the above contention fails.

¶130

The further contention that the statement of accounts is not signed by anybody from the applicant bank and that no certificate filed by the applicant bank under BBE Act. On perusal of statement of accounts filed with OA, the applicant bank had filed statement of accounts, statement of memorandum of interest along with mandatory certificates under Banker Book’s Evidence Act, 1891 as required. Hence the above contention fails.

¶131

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶132

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶133

04.05.2026

¶134

¶135

With regard to the defendant’s contention that the penal interest was compounded with the Principal amount and were subjected to interest on a monthly rest basis, it is a matter of record that as per the agreed terms, the applicant bank is entitled to charge penal interest in case of default in payment. Further, the statement of account produced by the applicant bank reflects that penal interest has not be compounded with the principal. The defendant failed to furnish any document to prove his contention and hence the above contention also fails.

¶136

The further contention that defendants were made to sign many blank papers contents of which are not known to all defendant and the applicant bank had later filled the same to suit them for claiming the amount in the above OA. The defendant while denying execution of the aforesaid documents, did not choose to file any application for sending the disputed documents to the handwriting experts for their opinion or had filed any application for cross examination of concerned Branch Manager at that relevant point of time. A "bald denial" without documentary evidence refers to a bare, unsupported, or vague denial of an allegation that lacks any supporting proof or specifics. Various Courts consistently have held that such denials are insufficient in law.

¶137

Once a signature is admitted, the presumption is that the document was validly executed. The defendant must provide strong evidence — such as witness testimony, discrepancies in the document, or expert handwriting analysis—to prove the document was signed while blank. The

¶138

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶139

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶140

04.05.2026

¶141

¶142

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and many common law jurisdictions have repeatedly held that a signatory is bound by the contents of a document, even if they did not read it, provided there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion. The burden of proof lies with the executant of the documents, and cannot be disputed at a later point of time to suit their defense. In the absence of any such documentary evidence, this contention fails.

¶143

In this context, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Corporation Bank V/s Sushil Enterprises (2004) 1 ISJ Banking 160 is relevant, wherein it is held that:

¶144

“Nobody is expected to sign the documents without reading or when it is blank and if he does so he does at his own risk and the very fact that the plaintiff bank has disbursed the loan amount and Defendant had availed it also shows that the documents were valid and duly executed.”

¶145

With regard to the contention of the defendant that as the loan is covered under CGTMSE, the applicant bank can recover the claim by availing the said cover. It is settled position of law that CGTMSE claim settlement for NPA recovery involves the trust paying 75%–85% of the defaulted amount (up to ₹100 lakh–₹200 lakh based on category) in two installments after the lender initiates legal action. The first installment (75% of the guarantee) is paid upon filing a claim, while the second (remaining 25%) is paid after legal recovery proceedings conclude.

¶146

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶147

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶148

¶149

04.05.2026

¶150

The contention of defendant that the account has become NPA on 15.05.2021, however the bank took so much time to tile the OA and the delay for filing the above case is also not explained properly. It is a matter of record that the OA was filed on 24.09.2021 before this Tribunal, much within the limitation period of three years from the date of execution of loan and security documents. Hence the above contention fails.

¶151

With regard to the loan amounts due from the Defendants, the applicant Bank has filed the Statement of Loan Accounts as Ex A-46 to A- 54 duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act,1891 containing the details of loan transactions pertaining to the loan account of Defendant. The Defendants have neither pointed out any omission or wrong entry in the certified Statement of Account nor filed any proof or documentary evidence to disprove the entries made the Statement of Accounts. Further, the Defendants failed to explain as to how they are not liable to the claim made in the Application. On the other hand, Applicant bank filed the loan and security documents duly executed by Defendants along with the Terms and Conditions stipulated therein and the Statement of Accounts duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act. Therefore, in the absence of any proof or material evidence produced by Defendants to substantiate their claim, the allegation fails.

¶152

In this regard, this Tribunal places reliance on the decision reported in 2012(6) SCC 430 A. Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana

¶153

Paripalanai Sangam , wherein it was held as under:

¶154

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶155

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶156

¶157

04.05.2026

¶158

“27. The pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim or defence. The pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility. If false averments, evasive denials or false denials are introduced, then the Court must carefully look into it while deciding a case and insist that those who approach the Court must approach it with clean hands.”

¶159

Thus, in the absence of any such proof or evidence to disprove the claim of applicant bank, the allegations made by the Defendant falls to the ground and deserve rejection.

¶160

A perusal of the statement of accounts clearly reveals that the debit and credit entries have been properly made and no contra evidence produced to repudiate the entries made thereunder.

¶161

The applicant bank through its Witness (AW.1) has corroborated the averments made in the OA by marking of documents Ex A-1 to A-55. There is no contra-evidence available on record to repudiate the claim of the applicant bank regarding the availing of loan, execution of loan and security documents by Defendants and the default committed by them in repaying the loan.

¶162

A careful scrutiny of records makes it clear that present application is filed well within limitation and this Tribunal possesses necessary and proper jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claim. No documentary evidence on the side of defendants are produced or filed to dispute the

¶163

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶164

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶165

¶166

04.05.2026

¶167

claim of applicant bank. Hence, it can be concluded that applicant bank has proved its claim against defendants.

¶168

Considering the submissions of both sides and having regard to the

¶169

amount advanced, the interest applied, the documents executed, the conduct and operations in the loan account and the default committed, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant bank is entitled to a final order on the following terms:-

¶170

: O R D E R :

¶171

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶172

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendant, a sum of Rs.1,56,26,565/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Six Lakhs

¶173

Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Five only) repayable together with contractual interest rate with monthly rests plus penal interest of 2% from the date of Application till the date of realization in full, along with for costs of this OA.

¶174

(b) In the event of failure of the Defendants to pay the aforesaid amount, the bank is at liberty to recover the amount by sale of the schedule mentioned hypothecated assets morefully detailed in the OA schedule.

¶175

(b) OA Schedule shall be appended to this final order.

¶176

¶177

to satisfy the dues as ordered above, the applicant bank is at liberty to sell the personal assets of the Defendant (both movable and

¶178

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶179

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶180

¶181

04.05.2026

¶182

immovable) to recover the balance dues as required under law for which the Defendants to disclose to the Tribunal particulars of other properties or assets owned by the Defendant.

¶183

(d) 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.

¶184

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

¶185

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

¶186

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

¶187

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

¶188

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 04^th day of May, 2026)

¶189

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶190

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

04.05.2026

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶195

AW-1: Mr. M.M.K.Satyanarayana, Assistant General Manager of the Applicant Bank

¶196

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶197

Sl. No.	Date	Description	of D	ocume	nts		Exhibit No.
1.	23.04.2011	Sanction letter					A-1
2.	05.05.2011	Demand Promiss 2025000/-	ory	Note	for	Rs	A-2
3.	05.05.2011	Medium term loan	agre	ement			A-3
4.	05.05.2011	Agreement of movables	Hyp	otheca	tion	of	A-4
5.	05.05.2011	Demand Promiss 500000/-	ory	Note	for	Rs	A-5
6.	05.05.2011	Agreement of movables	Hyp	otheca	tion	of	A-6
7.	13.03.2013	Acknowledgement	of de	bt cum	secur	ity	A-7
8.	06.01.2014	Sanction letter					A-8
9	17.01.2014	Demand Promiss 3798000/-	ory	Note	for	Rs	A-9
10	17.01.2014	Medium term loan	agre	ement			A-10
11.	17.01.2014	Agreement of movables	Hyp	otheca	tion	of	A-11
12.	11.07.2014	Acknowledgement	of de	bt cum	secur	ity	A-12
13.	16.07.2015	Acknowledgement	of de	bt cum	secur	ity	A-13
14.	30.01.2016	Flood relief propo WC to term loan	sal f	or conv	ersion	of	A-14
15.	30.01.2016	Letter from borr letter	ower	for c	onver	sion	A-15
16.	28.09.2016	Sanction letter					A-16
17.	01.12.2016	Demand Promiss 1140000/-	ory	Note	for	Rs	A-17
18.	01.12.2016	Medium term loan	agre	ement			A-18
19.	01.12.2016	Agreement of movables	Hyp	otheca	tion	of	A-19
20	01.12.2016	Acknowledgement	of de	bt cum	secur	ity	A-20
21.	15.09.2017	Sanction letter					A-21
22.	18.09.2017	Demand Promiss 2710000/-	ory	Note	for	Rs	A-22
23.	18.09.2017	Medium term loan	agre	ement			A-23
24.	18.09.2017	Agreement of movables	Hyp	otheca	tion	of	A-24

¶198

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶199

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶200

¶201

04.05.2026

¶202

25.	18.09.2017	Acknowledgement of de	bt cum	secur	ity	A-25
26.	22.10.2018	Sanction letter				A-26
27.	24.10.2018	Demand Promissory 580000/-	Note	for	Rs	A-27
28.	24.10.2018	Medium term loan agre	ement			A-28
29.	24.10.2018	Agreement of Hyp movables	otheca	tion	of	A-29
30.	25.09.2019	Letter for name change				A-30
31.	30.09.2019	Sanction letter				A-31
32.	30.09.2019	Demand Promissory 500000/-	Note	for	Rs	A-32
33.	30.09.2019	Agreement for OCC				A-33
34.	30.09.2019	Agreement of Hyp movables	otheca	tion	of	A-34
35.	30.09.2019	Acknowledgement of de	bt cum	secur	ity	A-35
36.	26.02.2020	Sanction letter				A-36
37.	26.02.2020	Demand Promissory 1750000/-	Note	for	Rs	A-37
38.	26.02.2020	Agreement for funded loan	inter	est t	erm	A-38
39.	26.02.2020	Acknowledgement of de	bt cum	secur	ity	A-39
40.	05.06.2020	Sanction letter				A-40
41.	08.06.2020	Demand Promissory 2400000/-	Note	for	Rs	A-41
42.	08.06.2020	Term loan agreement				A-42
43.	08.06.2020	Agreement of Hyp movables	otheca	tion	of	A-43
44.	08.06.2020	Acknowledgement of de	bt cum	secur	ity	A-44
45.	31.03.2021	Details of assets and lia	bilities			A-45
46.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of accounts of loan no.966	statem 894329	ents	of	A-46
47.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of accounts of loan no.778	statem 886220	ents	of	A-47
48.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of accounts of loan no.619	statem 165153	ents 0	of	A-48
49.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of accounts of loan no.640	statem 616856	ents 3	of	A-49
50.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of accounts of loan no.648	statem 504469	ents 0	of	A-50
51.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of accounts of loan no.656	statem 529270	ents 2	of	A-51
52.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of accounts of loan no.668	statem 831026	ents 7	of	A-52
53.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of accounts of loan no.686	statem 347184	ents 9	of	A-53
54.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of	statem	ents	of	A-54

¶203

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

¶204

O.A. No. 72 of 2022

¶205

¶206

04.05.2026

¶207

		accounts of loan no.6884802062
55.	17.09.2021	Certified extract of statements of calculation of interest for loan accs.	A-55
56.	22.09.2021	Certificate under Bankers’ Books Evidence act.

¶208

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶209

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶210

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶211

All the hypothecated stocks viz, goods, Produce, merchandise stocks all tangible movable properties and other products stored which now or hereafter from time to time during the currency of the loans shall belong to the defendant and are stored in or about the premises or anywhere else or godowns of the borrower in the Premise at M/s. ABO AUTOCOM, New No.3, SIDCO Industrial estate, North phase Korattur, Chennai-600 098 vide agreement of Hypothecation of movables dated 08.06.2020 with the applicant.

¶212

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

¶213

Uploaded on 04.05.2026 at 16:45 hours

Indian Bank v. Ms Abo Autocom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Ms Abo Autocom

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

Ramakrishnan Subbaiyan versus State Bank of India

Yes Bank versus Lavanya Proprietrix M/S Lavan Drug House

Sathasivam versus Manapuram Home Finance Ltd.

Muthuraman versus Bank of India

Sivakumar versus Hdfc Bank

Yes Bank versus Arputhasamy Sebastian