Allowed

Indian Bank v. Mechniks Engineering Ability India

DRT22 Jun 2026TA/1337/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Indian Bank for recovery of a loan facility of Rs. 12.64 lakhs due from the defendants, who were represented by a company and its directors.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 12,64,931.74 including interest at 12.40% p.a. and costs from defendants jointly and severally.

Indian Bank versus Mechniks Engineering Ability India — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 1337 of 2023

¶2

22.06.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No.1337 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA No.473 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1337 of 2023)

¶9

Indian Bank, Represented by its Asst. General Manager, 69, I avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai- 600 083

¶10

…Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

M/s Mechniks Engineering Abilitys India Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director Mr. John N. Rathinaraj, 3/9, Raghavan colony II cross street,

¶13

Ashok Nagar,

¶14

Chennai- 600 083

¶15

Mr. John N. Rathinaraj, Managing Director of M/s Mechniks Engineering Abilitys India Ltd 3/9, Raghavan colony II cross street, Ashok Nagar,

¶16

Chennai- 600 083

¶17

Mr. Stanley Ebenezar, Director of Mechniks Engineering Abilitys India Ltd 3/9, Raghavan colony II cross street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai- 600 083

¶18

Mr. J. Anandakumar, Director of Mechniks Engineering Abilitys India Ltd 3/9, Raghavan colony II cross street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai- 600 083 ….Defendants

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.R.K. Associates Defendants 1 to 4 were set ex-parte on 26.07.2021

¶21

T.A. No. 1337 of 2023

¶22

¶23

22.06.2026

¶24

: - FINAL ORDER- :

¶25

This Original Application is filed on 16.01.2019 by the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally for recovery of a total sum of Rs.12,64,931.74p (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty One and Seventy Four Paise only) due in respect of Overdraft facility (A/c No.6135831949) repayable together with further interest @ 12.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realization in full and for costs of this OA.

¶26

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.473 of 2019, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.473 of 2019 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1337 of 2023.

¶27

Brief Facts of the case:

¶28

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.

¶29

It is the case of the applicant bank that the 1^st defendant is a Public Limited Company, who is engaged in the business of operation and

¶30

T.A. No. 1337 of 2023

¶31

¶32

22.06.2026

¶33

maintenance of factories, represented by its Managing director Mr. John M. Rathinaraj, the 2^nd defendant herein along with defendants 3 and 4 who are the Directors in the first defendant company. The defendants had jointly approached the applicant bank for the purpose of availing Overdraft credit facility and had submitted an application for the same on 13.06.2013.

¶34

It is submitted by the applicant bank that on the proposal submitted by the 1^st defendant, represented by its Managing Director, the 2^nd Defendant herein, the applicant bank had sanctioned the credit facility under the Head OD facility for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) vide Sanction Ticket dated 17.06.2013.

¶35

As per the terms of the sanction ticket, the 1^st defendant represented by its Managing Director, the 2^nd defendant herein had undertaken to repay the above facility with interest @14.95% per annum within 1 year.

¶36

In order to secure the above loan, the 1^st defendant had executed the following documents on 18.06.2013 in favour of the applicant bank: (i) Single/ Joint Demand Promissory Note (D-1) dated 18.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) agreeing to repay the said loan with interest at the rate of 14.95%

¶37

per annum from the date of DPN to the date of payment in full with monthly rests or such rates as may be revised by the bank from time to time.

¶38

T.A. No. 1337 of 2023

¶39

22.06.2026

¶40

¶41

(ii) Letter of continuity (D-3)

¶42

(iii) Agreement for hypothecation of movables

¶43

(iv) Agreement for open cash credit (stocks/ book debts)(D 105)

¶44

(v) Declaration by the borrower

¶45

The applicant bank submits that on 18.01.2016, the 1^st defendant company represented by its Managing Director, Mr. John N. Rathinaraj, the 2^nd defendant herein had executed an Acknowledgement of Debt cum Security (D11) acknowledging the liability that as on 09.10.2015, a sum of Rs.9,84,985/- towards the outstanding and a sum of Rs.94,476.74p towards Memorandum of Interest due as on 09.10.2015 and thereby acknowledging their liability.

¶46

The applicant submits that after availing the loan, the 1^st defendant had committed default in repaying the Equated Monthly Instalments. The repeated requests and reminders made by the applicant bank to the defendants to clear the outstanding balance in the said loan accounts did not evoke any response from them. Since the defendants had failed to repay the loan amount for 3 consecutive months, the applicant bank was constrained to classify the loan account of the defendants as NonPerforming Asset (NPA) on 31.05.2017.

¶47

The applicant bank further submits that the principal outstanding in the loan account of the 1^st defendant as on 09.01.2019 in respect of the credit facility availed under the head of Overdraft facility account was Rs.9,97,183.94p and the Memorandum of interest charged upto

¶48

T.A. No. 1337 of 2023

¶49

22.06.2026

¶50

¶51

09.01.2019 was Rs.2,67,747.80p and totally a sum of Rs.12,64,931.74p was due to bank as on 09.01.2019. Despite repeated requests and demands, as defendants did not come forward to repay the dues, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendants.

¶52

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the Defendants 1 to 4 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which was returned with remarks “Left” in respect of D-1 to D-4. Applicant Bank had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 26.07.2021 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, Defendants

¶53

1 to 4 were placed ex-parte on 26.07.2021.

¶54

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the

¶55

records.

¶56

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Mrs. R. Bhuvaneswari, Branch Manager / Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank, has filed her Affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-

¶57

1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex A-1 to A-9.

¶58

A careful examination of the pleadings in the Proof Affidavit and documents Exhibits A-1 to A-9 evidence that the borrowal of credit facilities and execution of loan and security documents are true, in terms of averments made in Original Application as well as Proof Affidavit filed by applicant bank establishing its claim. Applicant bank filed Statement of

¶59

T.A. No. 1337 of 2023

¶60

22.06.2026

¶61

¶62

Accounts duly certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, evidencing the amount claimed against defendants.

¶63

The defendants were set ex-parte on 26.07.2021, but till this day they did not take any action to set aside the ex-parte order and did not choose to contest the claim. Further, 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 oral or documentary evidence on the side of defendants are produced or filed to dispute the claim of applicant bank. Hence, it can be concluded that applicant bank has proved its claim against defendants.

¶64

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.

¶65

: O R D E R :

¶66

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶67

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally, a total sum of Rs.12,64,931.74p (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty One and Seventy Four Paise only) due in respect of Overdraft facility (A/c No.6135831949) repayable together with further interest @ 12.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this

¶68

T.A. No. 1337 of 2023

22.06.2026

application.

(b) The applicant bank shall file the latest memo of calculation of

¶73

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.

¶74

¶75

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

¶76

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

¶77

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA)

¶78

PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶79

(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 22^nd day of June, 2026)

¶80

ANNEXURES

¶81

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶82

AW-1: Mrs. R. Bhuvaneswari, Branch Manager/ Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶83

T.A. No. 1337 of 2023

¶84

¶85

22.06.2026

¶86

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶87

Sl. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	13.06.2013	Application for home loan	A-1
2.	17.06.2013	Sanction ticket for home loan for Rs.10,00,000/-	A-2
3.	18.06.2013	Single/joint demand promissory note (D-1) for Rs.10,00,000/-	A-3
4.	18.06.2013	Letter of continuity (D-3)	A-4
5.	18.06.2013	Agreement of hypothecation of movables (D-1)	A-5
6.	18.06.2013	Agreement of open cash credit facility	A-6
7.	18.06.2013	Declaration by the borrower	A-7
8.	18.06.2013	Acknowledgement of debt cum security	A-8
9.	18.06.2013	Statement of accounts	A-9
10.	23.05.2022	Certificate with regard to the statement of account

¶88

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶89

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶90

:-SCHEDULE-:

¶91

-NIL-

¶92

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

Indian Bank v. Mechniks Engineering Ability India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Mechniks Engineering Ability India

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

M/s. Industrial Connections Rep. by its Proprietor S. Elamathy versus Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Srinivasan

Union Bank of India versus Mp Paper Traders

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Chandirasekaran

Bank of Baroda versus Aarifa Banu

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus M/S Lara Impex