CITY UNION BANK LIMITED vs GOKILA AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD on 28 March 2024

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. 89,71,653/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three only) due in the Agricultural Term loan, Agricultural secured over draft and COVID Crisis credit availed by the 1st defendant represented by the 2nd defendant.

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 following credit facilities of agricultural EMI term loan, Agricultural secured over draft and COVID Crisis Credit for Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.10 Lakhs each respectively were availed by the 1st defendant represented by the 2nd defendant. It is also stated the 2nd and 3rd defendant had extended personal guarantee. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of A schedule properties and hypothecation.

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 resulting the accounts being classified as NPA on 31.1.2021. It is also stated that a demand notice dated 28.5.2021 was also issued. The demand notice is followed by symbolic possession notice. Since all the efforts of the applicant to get the amount repaid/recovered failed this TA is filed.

5. The defendants entered appearance and those sufficient opportunity was granted no reply statement was filed resulting the chance for filing reply statement was closed.

6. The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in conforming with pleading and got marked Ext A1 to A49. Though chance was given to the defendant to produce contra evidence no defense evidence was adduced.

7. Heard, the following issues arise for consideration: -

(i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

(ii) What orders are to be passed? Both these issues are decided together.

8. The Applicant evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove TA claim. Hence the Applicant is to be found entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate which this Tribunal considers is on the higher side, taking note of the fact that, the facility is for agricultural purpose pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8% simple.

9. In view of the above, the following order is passed: - (a) TA No.681 of 2022 stands allowed.

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 89,71,653/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three only) with future and pendente l\ite interest @ 8% simple per annum from the date of filing of the OA/TA till realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the

OA/TA, from the defendants jointly and severally and also by proceeding against their assets including scheduled properties. The defendants 2 and 3 are personally liable for the TA claim.

(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.

10. 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 the Open court, this the 28th day of March, 2024)

Sd/- (T.RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

DRT-II, CHENNAI