FEDERAL BANK vs M/s Revieraa Marine Pvt. Ltd on 31 October 2025

1. M/s.Revieraa Marine Pvt. Ltd., Regd Office: XVI/1373 E, Mehrab Building, Patel Market Road, Thoppumpady, Cochin – 682 005.

2. Zakharia Ahmed, S/o.Ahmed Naina, Plot No.2, Panchavady Colony, Vyttila, Ernakulam District, Kerala State - 682 019.

3. Rossamma Thomas, W/o.(Late) Thomas Antony, Parackal House, Vazhoor Village, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District - 686 504.

4. Tony Anto Thomas, S/o.(Late) Thomas Antony, Parackal House,

Vazhoor Village, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District - 686 504.

5. Joseph Thomas, S/o.(Late) Thomas Antony, Parackal House, Vazhoor Village, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District - 686 504.

6. Thomas Thomas, S/o.(Late) Thomas Antony, Parackal House, Vazhoor Village, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District - 686 504.

7. Judy Maria Thomas, D/o.(Late) Thomas Antony, Parackal House, Vazhoor Village, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District - 686 504. D3 to D7, being impleaded as the legal heirs of Late Thomas Antony, are also residing at: Golden Enclave, Flat No.9A, Muttambalam P.O., Kottayam - 686 004.

…Defendants

This Original Application having been heard on 29.10.2025 in the presence of Advocates M/s.Varughese Cherian and Jayakala S.S. for the applicant bank and the defendants being absent and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

F I N A L O R D E R This Original Application has been filed under S.19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.72,91,270.92 due under packing credit limit accounts and current account together with future interest on the sum of Rs.72,75,633.56 @20.25% per annum with monthly rests in packing credit accounts and @20.95% per annum with monthly rests in current account from the defendants and their assets. Facts of the case:

2. The applicant is a banking company constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Aluva and a branch amongst other places at Aroor in Alappuzha District.

3. The 1st defendant company was enjoying various credit facilities from the applicant bank from 2002 onwards for its business requirements and the facilities were renewed from time to time. The 2nd defendant and Thomas Antony, who expired on 13.10.2011, are the managing director and director respectively of the 1st defendant company. The defendants 3 to 7 are the legal heirs of deceased Thomas Antony. At the request of the 1st defendant, applicant bank sanctioned a renewed packing credit limit of Rs.2 crores and a renewed post shipment limit (export bills purchase – FUBP) of Rs.3 crores and they availed the same on 28.06.2011 after executing necessary documents. The 2nd defendant and late Thomas Antony executed guarantee agreements guaranteeing due repayment and discharge of Rs.5 crores availed by the 1st defendant company. As per the agreement dated 28.06.2011, the 1st defendant hypothecated the stock of raw materials, packing materials etc. with the bank by way of first charge as security for the aforesaid credit limits.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 and late Thomas Antony executed balance confirmation letter dated 28.06.2011 acknowledging the liability under the packing credit limits and post shipment limit. As they stopped export operations, the accounts became irregular. Consequently, the security deposits available with the applicant were appropriated towards the liabilities and the post shipment limit was closed. The remaining liability in the packing credit limit represents PCL-1, PCL-2 and PCL-3 and the overdraft current account represents the PCL interest and other charges debited in the account. As the borrowers did not regularize the accounts, applicant bank issued a lawyer notice recalling the liability but they did not liquidate the outstanding dues. Hence the applicant was constrained to file the OA claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover an aggregate sum of Rs.72,91,270.92 together with pendente lite and post-decree interest on the sum of Rs.72,75,633.56 from the defendants and their assets;

(ii) To recover the costs, charges and expenses from the defendants;

(iii) To issue Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer with a direction to recover the amount and pay it to the applicant bank. Written statement

5. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement contending inter alia that demand promissory note, agreement for export advances and guarantee agreement are unenforceable against the defendants as there was no consensus of ad idem underlying such agreements. In March, 2011, the 1st defendant shipped master cartons of frozen cuttle fish to M/s.Compania Meat, Naples, Italy but they raised quality related disputes and stalled the payment. The defendants are not liable to be penalized for default in repayment as the same occurred on account of factors beyond their control.

6. The defendants 3 to 7 presented a written statement belatedly without any petition to accept the same and hence their written statement was not taken on record. Proof Affidavit:

7. To establish the claim on behalf of the applicant bank, one Mrs.Betty Varghese, Chief Manager of the applicant has filed proof affidavit and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A23. The availing of the credit facilities is well established from the documents placed by the applicant bank.

8. The 2nd defendant filed counter proof affidavit contending that at the time of disbursement of loan, the defendants were made to sign various papers and the contents were not explained to them. The terms of alleged guarantee agreement envisage granting of credit facilities to the 1st defendant company subsequent to execution of the guarantee agreement but no credit facilities were granted subsequent to 28.06.2011. The alleged guarantee agreement is thus not enforceable against the guarantors on account of want of consideration. It is further submitted that default in repayment of the loans was not deliberate. On account of applicant’s failure to sanction a workable loan restructuring package, the defendants were disabled from repayment of the loan.

9. The contesting defendants remained absent from the proceeding from 23.05.2023 and none appeared and represented to advance argument in this case.

10. On careful evaluation of the submissions and available materials, it appears that the 1st defendant company was enjoying credit facilities from the applicant bank from 2002 onwards and the same were renewed from time to time. As per Ext.A2 resolution, the 1st defendant company had resolved to borrow packing credit limit of Rs.200 lakhs and post shipment bill purchase limit of Rs.300 lakhs from the applicant bank. According to the applicant bank, the aforesaid facilities were renewed by the defendants on 28.06.2011. The records would show that at the time of renewal of the loans, defendants 1 and 2 and late Thomas Antony executed Ext.A3 demand promissory note for Rs.2 crores, Ext.A4 security delivery letter, Ext.A5 demand promissory note for Rs.3 crores, Ext.A6 security delivery letter and Ext.A7 agreement for export advances. By executing Ext.A10 balance confirmation letter, defendants 1 and 2 as well as late Thomas Antony had acknowledged the liability under the packing credit limit and post shipment bill limit accounts.

11. Further, it could be seen that while renewing credit limits, the 2nd defendant and late Thomas Antony executed Ext.A9

agreement of guarantee dated 28.06.2011 agreeing jointly and severally to repay the dues of Rs.5 crores apart from all interest, costs, expenses and other charges. It is also agreed that this guarantee shall be a continuing guarantee and shall not be considered as wholly or partially satisfied or exhausted by any payment made to the bank or settlement of any account. It is the contention of defendants 1 and 2 that alleged guarantee agreement envisages granting of credit facilities to the 1st defendant company but no facilities were granted subsequent to 28.06.2011 and hence the same is not enforceable against them. Apparently, the security documents were executed by defendants 1 and 2 and late Thomas Antony on 28.06.2011 while renewing the existing credit facilities and hence such contention of the defendants is not acceptable. They cannot plead ignorance of the contents of the loan documents executed by them. The judgments relied on by defendants 1 and 2 are not helpful to them in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is the admitted case of defendants 1 and 2 that after availing the facilities, some default occurred in repayment. An aggregate sum of Rs.72,91,270.92 is outstanding in the loan accounts as on 12.02.2013, which is clearly established from the account statements marked as Exts.A12 to A15.

12. Admittedly, defendants 3 to 7 are the legal heirs of deceased Thomas Antony, who is one of the guarantors to the loans availed by the 1st defendant company. Therefore, liability of defendants 3 to 7 is limited to the extent of the value of assets, if any, left by deceased Thomas Antony in their hands. In such premises, it is concluded that the applicant bank is entitled to recover the amount claimed in the OA from defendants 1 and 2; and defendants 3 to 7 are only liable to the extent of the value of assets succeeded by them from the deceased Thomas Antony.

13. Considering the amount advanced, interest and penal interest applied, repayments effected and default committed, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendente lite and post decree interest in the manner stated below, which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

14. The applicant bank, therefore, is entitled to get a final order on the following lines: In the result, the applicant bank is given a final order allowing it to recover: PCL-1 Rs.4,22,360/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty two thousand three hundred and sixty only) together with pendente lite and post-decree interest thereon @12% per annum from 13.02.2013 till realization from defendants 1 and

2 and their assets and also from the assets, if any, left by deceased Thomas Antony in the hands of defendants 3 to 7, who shall be personally liable to the extent of the value of such assets in the event of their failure to satisfactorily account for the same; PCL-2 Rs.7,63,684/- (Rupees seven lakhs sixty three thousand six hundred and eighty four only) together with pendente lite and post-decree interest thereon @12% per annum from 13.02.2013 till realization from defendants 1 and 2 and their assets and also from the assets, if any, left by deceased Thomas Antony in the hands of defendants 3 to 7, who shall be personally liable to the extent of the value of such assets in the event of their failure to satisfactorily account for the same; PCL-3 Rs.45,49,134/- (Rupees forty five lakhs forty nine thousand one hundred and thirty four only) together with pendente lite and post-decree interest thereon @12% per annum from 13.02.2013 till realization from defendants 1 and 2 and their assets and also from the assets, if any, left by deceased Thomas Antony in the hands of defendants 3 to 7, who shall be personally liable to the extent of the value of such assets in the event of their failure to satisfactorily account for the same; Current account Rs.15,56,092.92 (Rupees fifteen lakhs fifty six thousand ninety two and Paise ninety two only) together with pendente lite and post-decree interest

@12% per annum on the sum of Rs.15,40,455.56 (Rupees fifteen lakhs forty thousand four hundred and fifty five and Paise fifty six only) from 13.02.2013 till realization from defendants 1 and 2 and their assets and also from the assets, if any, left by deceased Thomas Antony in the hands of defendants 3 to 7, who shall be personally liable to the extent of the value of such assets in the event of their failure to satisfactorily account for the same; and costs and expenses borne by it for realization of the loans from defendants 1 and 2.

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

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

17. Communicate copy of this order to both parties as provided in R.16 r/w R.2(c) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 31st day of October, 2025)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Mrs.Betty Varghese, Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant bank.

Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 02.05.2002 Certificate of incorporation No.U15127KL2002 PTC015389 of the 1st defendant. A2 18.06.2011 Board of resolution of the 1st defendant authoring the directors to avail loan/ execute documents. A3 28.06.2011 Demand Promissory Note for Rs.2,00,00,000/- executed by the 1st defendant through 2nd defendant and Late Thomas Antony in favour of the applicant bank. A4 28.06.2011 Security delivery letter executed by the 1st defendant through 2nd defendant and Late Thomas Antony. A5 28.06.2011 Demand Promissory Note for Rs.3,00,00,000/- executed by the 1st defendant through 2nd defendant and Late Thomas Antony in favour of the applicant bank. A6 28.06.2011 Security delivery letter executed by the 1st defendant through 2nd defendant and Late Thomas Antony. A7 28.06.2011 Agreement for export advances executed by the 1st defendant through 2nd defendant and Late Thomas Antony in favour of the applicant bank. A8 05.01.2011 Certificate of registration from Registrar of Companies A9 28.06.2011 Agreement of guarantee executed by the 2nd defendant and Late Thomas Antony. A10 28.06.2011 Balance confirmation letter executed by the 1st defendant through 2nd defendant and Late Thomas Antony.

A11 31.08.2012 Office copy of the lawyer’s notice issued to the defendants. A12 13.02.2013 Statement of account of the Packing Credit Loan- 1 duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act/IT Act. A13 13.02.2013 Statement of account of the Packing Credit Loan- 2 duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act/IT Act. A14 13.02.2013 Statement of account of the Packing Credit Loan- 3 duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act/IT Act. A15 13.02.2013 Statement of account of the CA duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act/IT Act. A16 .. Certificate showing varying rate of interest applied in the Exhibit A12 account. A17 .. Certificate showing varying rate of interest applied in the Exhibit A13 account. A18 .. Certificate showing varying rate of interest applied in the Exhibit A14 account. A19 .. Certificate showing varying rate of interest applied in the Exhibit A15 account. A20 .. Statement showing penal interest and capitalized penal interest charged in the Exhibit A12 account. A21 .. Statement showing penal interest and capitalized penal interest charged in the Exhibit A13 account. A22 .. Statement showing penal interest and capitalized penal interest charged in the Exhibit A14 account. A23 .. Statement showing penal interest and capitalized penal interest charged in the Exhibit A15 account.

Defendants’ Exhibits – Nil

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 31st October, 2025

TA No.1069/2016 (OA No.79/2013)

Between

The Federal Bank Ltd., Regd. Office: Aluva, Kerala State. Branch: Aroor, St. Augustine’s Church Building, Bye pass junction, Aroor, Alappuzha District. …Applicant

And

M/s.Revieraa Marine Pvt. Ltd., Regd Office: XVI/1373 E, Mehrab Building, Patel Market Road, Thoppumpady, Cochin – 682 005 & 6 others.

…Defendants

F I N A L O R D E R