Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
HDFC BANK vs VARDEEP PETRO CHEMICAL PVT LTD on 28 March 2024
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 28th day of March, 2024
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No.105 of 2022
(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.318 of 2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.105 of 2022)
HDFC Bank Ltd
No.128, Nelson Manickam Road
East West Centre, Ground Floor
Aminjikarai, Chennai-600029
Also at
“CEEBROS”
110, Nelson Manickam Road
4th floor, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600029
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory
Mr. P. Nirmalraj
…Applicant
Versus
1.
M/s. Vardeep Petro Chemical Private Limited Rep. by its Director, Shaly Deepu Abraham 1st floor, Plot No.2685, Old No.AL &84
New No.AL 15, 9th street, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chenna i- 600040
2.
Ms. Shaly Deepu Abraham
D/o. Eliase Pariyarath Paulose
1st floor, Plot No.2685, Old No.AL &84
New No.AL 15, 9th street, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600040
3.
Mr. Deepu Bahu Abraham
S/o. Abraham Babu
1st floor, Plot No.2685, Old No.AL &84
New No.AL 15, 9th street, 11th main road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600040
Counsel for the Applicant Bank
Counsel for Defendants
:
:
Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan
M/s K.A. Ramakrishnan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
FINAL ORDER
1. The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.44,76,569.42p due in the Business loan availed by the defendants.
2. The above TA was originally filed before DRT-I and got transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.
3. The applicant contends that the credit facility of Rs.50,00,000/- was availed by the 1st defendant Company through the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendants as the Directors of the 1st defendant. It is also stated that the business loan so availed is an unsecured one with no collaterals.
4. The Applicant further contents that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendant failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount, including issuing lawyer notices failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.
5. Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were called absent and set ex-parte on 7.6.2022. Defendant entered appearance and filed a reply statements disputing the liability and also that the claim is barred by limitation. It is also stated that the entire sanctioned amount was not disbursed. Another contention taken is that the amounts remitted by the defendants were not properly given credit to.
6. The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Ext A1 to A11.
7. The defendants had filed a counter proof affidavit reiterating the contentions as taken in the reply statements.
8. Heard, the following issues arise for consideration: - (a) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?
(b) What orders are to be passed? Both these issues are decided together.
9. The applicant let in evidence and produced the loan documents evidencing the TA claim. Even though the defendant had filed a reply statement it contains only an evasive denial as the contentions regarding the availment of the facility is not seriously disputed by the defendants. Apart from the general denial and a counter proof affidavit reiterating the same nothing is available on records to discredit the evidence of the applicant. The evidence tendered by the applicant and the documents produced in evidence are found to be admissible and the same is sufficient to prove the OA claim. The statement of accounts as produced by the applicant evidences that the amount as claimed in the OA is due in the account. However no evidence is forthcoming to fasten the liability personally on defendants 2 and 3. It is evident from the documents that the company is the borrower and no personal guarantee is extended by defendant 2 and 3.
10. It is also evident that the TA claim is made with the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. However taking note of the fact that TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 12% simple.
11. In view of the above, the following order is passed: - (a) TA No.105 of 2022 stands allowed.
(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.44,76,569.42p with future and pendente lite interest @ 12% simple per annum from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA/TA, from the 1st defendant and its assets.
(c) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery Officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms.
(d) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
12. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28th day of March, 2024)
Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI