Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Ritz Steel Industries

DRT25 Jun 2026TA/477/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai allowed an application filed by Karur Vysya Bank for recovery of dues. The court held that the bank established its claim via affidavit and documents against defendants who appeared ex-parte and failed to contest the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 35,29,048.08 with interest @15.75% p.a. and costs; liberty to sell mortgaged properties and issue recovery certificate.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Ritz Steel Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.477 of 2023

¶2

25.06.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No.477 of 2023

¶8

(Originally filed before DRT- II, Chennai as OA No.268 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.477 of 2023)

¶9

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Asset and Recovery Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager, 2^nd Floor, No.1, Padmavathiyar Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai- 600 086

¶10

…Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

M/s Ritz Steel Industries Rep by its partners 1. Mr.M.N.Haqeel Ahamed 2. Mr.M.M.Nazeer Ahamed No.28, Perumal Koil street, Opposite to water tank, Korattur Agraharam, Chennai- 600 076

¶13

Also at:

¶14

M/s Ritz Steel Industries Rep by its Partners No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Korattur Agraharam, Chennai- 600 076

¶15

Mr. M.N.Haqeel Ahamed, S/o Mr.Nazeer Ahamed No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Opposite to water tank, Korattur Agraharam, Chennai- 600 076

¶16

Also at:

¶17

Mr. M.N.Haqeel Ahamed No.2, Vatsala nagar, Koratur Lake view garden, Chennai- 600 076

¶18

Mr. M.M. Nazeer Ahamed S/o Mr. Mohammed Musthafa,

¶19

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶20

T.A. No.477 of 2023

¶21

¶22

25.06.2026

¶23

No.18, Rajiv Gandhi nagar, Opposite to water tank, Korattur Agraharam, Chennai- 600 076

¶24

Also at:

¶25

Mr. M.M.Nazeer Ahamed No.2, Vatsala Nagar, Koratur Lake View Garden, Chennai- 600 076 ….Defendants

¶26

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶27

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A. Arunbabu

¶28

Defendants 1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 06.01.2022

¶29

: - FINAL ORDER- :

¶30

This Original Application is filed on 22.03.2021 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 defendants 1 to 3, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,29,048.08p (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Forty Eight and Eight Paise only) due in respect of SOD-RE Limit (A/c No.1754280000000150) repayable together with further interest @15.75% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realization in full, for sale of schedule mentioned immovable property and for costs of this OA.

¶31

Originally, this Application was filed before DRT-II, Chennai, assigned OA No.268 of 2021, and thereafter in pursuance to the notification from Ministry of Finance, DFS dated 04.10.2022, OA No.268 of 2021 stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.477

¶32

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶33

T.A. No.477 of 2023

25.06.2026

of 2023.

Brief Facts of the case:

¶38

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.

¶39

It is the case of the applicant bank that the first defendant M/s Ritz Steel Industries represented by its Partners, the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants herein, had availed SOD- RE Loan for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) in the year 2016 towards Working Capital requirements. For the said loan, the 2^nd defendant had mortgaged his properties at Panchalai Village vide a form of memorandum for registration by deposit of title deeds dated 19.02.2016 registered as Doc No.661/2016 as security towards the loan availed which is morefully described in the schedule to the OA.

¶40

The applicant submits that at the request of the 1^st defendant said SOD-RE limit of Rs.20,00,000/- was further enhanced to a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in the same year, for which the second defendant had further extended his mortgage vide an Agreement relating to Deposit of Title Deeds for additional/enhancement dated 18.07.2016 registered as Doc.No.2800/2016 as a security towards the enhanced limit of Rs.5,00,000/-

¶41

It is submitted by the applicant bank that at the request of the first

¶42

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶43

T.A. No.477 of 2023

¶44

25.06.2026

¶45

¶46

defendant, the said SOD-RE limit of Rs.25,00,000/- was periodically renewed and was finally renewed in the year 2018 vide Credit Sanction Intimation dated 05.01.2018. The said loan is repayable on demand together with an interest @13.35% p.a. compounded with monthly rests or at such rates and rests as they be revised by the bank from time to time. The first defendant executed the following necessary loan documents on 05.01.2018 towards the renewal:

¶47

a) Demand Promissory Note

¶48

b) Agreement for Secured Overdraft- fixed assets

¶49

c) Deed of Hypothecation of current assets.

¶50

The applicant submits that even though the defendants had executed necessary documents towards the loan availed, the repayment towards the said loan was highly irregular. Despite various demands and reminders made by the applicant bank, the defendants have failed and neglected to repay the amount due. Hence the applicant bank had classified the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 29.09.2018 as per the RBI norms.

¶51

It is submitted by the applicant bank that since the account turned NPA, the applicant bank had initiated SARFAESI proceedings by issuing Demand Notice to the defendants on 31.10.2018 demanding their outstanding dues. The applicant bank had also taken symbolic possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice to the defendants on 05.11.2019. Even after repeated reminders made by the applicant bank the defendants had failed and neglected to repay the amount dues.

¶52

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶53

T.A. No.477 of 2023

¶54

25.06.2026

¶55

¶56

Hence, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendants.

¶57

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the Defendants 1 to 3 through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, which was returned with remarks “Left” in respect of D-1 and D-2 while summons to D-3 was duly served. Applicant Bank had caused paper publication of the notice and filed proof thereof. When OA was taken up on 06.01.2022 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendants. Hence, Defendants 1 to 3 were placed ex-parte on 06.01.2022.

¶58

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the

¶59

records.

¶60

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. P.S. Sundaravarathan, 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-11.

¶61

A careful examination of the pleadings in the Proof Affidavit and documents Exhibits A-1 to A-11 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 Accounts duly certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, evidencing the amount claimed against defendants.

¶62

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶63

T.A. No.477 of 2023

¶64

25.06.2026

¶65

¶66

The defendants were set ex-parte on 06.01.2022, 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.

¶67

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:

¶68

: O R D E R :

¶69

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶70

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendants 1 to 3, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,29,048.08p (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Forty Eight and Eight Paise only) due in respect of SOD-RE Limit (A/c No.1754280000000150) repayable together with further interest @15.75% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

¶71

(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

¶72

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶73

T.A. No.477 of 2023

¶74

25.06.2026

¶75

¶76

schedule mentioned immovable property morefully detailed in the OA schedule.

¶77

¶78

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

¶79

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.

¶80

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

¶81

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

¶82

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

¶83

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

¶84

(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 25^th day of June, 2026)

¶85

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶86

T.A. No.477 of 2023

25.06.2026

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶91

AW-1: Sh. P.S. Sundaravarathan, Assistant General Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶92

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶93

Sl. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
1.	19.02.2016	Form of Memorandum for registration by deposit of title deeds registered as Doc No.661/2016	A-1
2.	01.10.2014	Sale deed registered as Doc.No.4299/2014	A-2
3.	01.10.2014	Sale deed registered as Doc.No.4300/2014	A-3
4.	18.07.2016	Agreement relating to deposit of title deeds for additional/enhancement registered as Doc.No.2800/2016	A-4
5.	05.01.2018	Credit sanction intimation	A-5
6.	05.01.2018	Demand promissory note	A-6
7.	05.01.2018	Agreement for secured overdraft- fixed assets	A-7
8.	05.01.2018	Deed of hypothecation of current assets	A-8
9.	31.10.2018	Demand notice	A-9
10.	05.11.2019	Possession notice	A-10
11.	-	Statement of account	A-11

¶94

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶95

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶96

:-SCHEDULE-:

¶97

PROPERTY OF M.N.HAQUEEL AHAMED:

¶98

All that piece and parcel of vacant land admeasuring an extent of 30 cents as per document 13052sq.ft as per site comprised in S.No.9/2 situated at No.21, Keemalur, Panchalai village, Gummidipoondi village, Thiruvallur district and Bounded on the

¶99

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶100

T.A. No.477 of 2023

¶101

¶102

25.06.2026

¶103

North by: Property belonging to Mr.M.N.Haqueel Ahamed

¶104

South by: Vacant land and Road

¶105

East by: 30 feet Road

¶106

West by: 15 feet Road

¶107

North by: Property belonging to Mrs. Rasammai

¶108

South by: Property belonging to Mrs. Rosammal

¶109

West by: 15 Feet road

¶110

situated within the Sub Registration District of Gummidipoondi and Registration District of Thiruvallur.

¶111

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

¶112

Uploaded on 25.06.2026 at 15:00 hours

Karur Vysya Bank v. Ritz Steel Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Ritz Steel Industries

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

Hari Hara Sudhan Kn versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Ravina Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Dbs Bank Limited versus M s a v Constructions

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Gowtham

Federal Bank versus Rajkumar

State Bank of India versus Ms Sri Krishna Function Hall