Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SYNDICATE BANK vs Focus Guarding Solutions Pvt Ltd on 29 December 2023
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI
Dated this 29th day of December, 2023
PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
T.A.No.760 of 2022
(Old OA.No.113/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)
Canara Bank,
(Formerly known as Syndicate Bank),
Egmore Branch,
IFSC No.SYNB0006014,
Rep. by its Chief Manager,
No.16, Police Commissioner Office Road,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
… Applicant.
Vs.
1. M/s. Focus Guarding Solutions (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director & Managing Director, Mr.J.Salahudeen & Mrs.R.Priyadharshini, Old No.482, New No.939, 1st floor, H.R.Complex, Poonamallee High road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.
2. Mr.J.Salahudeen,
S/o.Mr.Jamaludeen,
No.75, 9th Cross Street,
Trustpuram,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai – 600 024.
3. Mrs.R.Priyadharshini,
D/o.Mr.Ravi Kumar,
No.58/3, Mandhi Nagagan Thottam
Royalanagar, Ramapuram
Chennai – 600 089.
… Defendants.
Counsel for Applicant
: M/s.T.Hemalatha.
Defendants
: Exparte.
……
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.
ORDER
1. The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.1,09,25,392.12 with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and also by sale of the hypotheca.
2. The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.
3. The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows: The 1st defendant company had availed credit facility of Rs.85,00,000/- as Cash Credit. The 2nd and 3rd defendants stood as co-borrowers. The credit facility was availed from erstwhile Syndicate Bank which got amalgamated with the applicant, who got substituted in palace of the former.
4. It is also stated that the above facility were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.
5. Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, hypothecation over the book debts were created as being the security for repayment of the loan.
6. Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 30.07.2018.
7. The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount.
8. It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendants had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.
9. Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 01.07.2019.
10. The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A8 and got the same marked as evidence.
11. Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim? ii) What orders are to be passed? Both these issues are gone into and decided together.
12. The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.
13. In view of the finding as entered above i) TA No.760 of 2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.1,09,25,392 (Rupees One Crore Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Thousands Three Hundred and Ninety Two only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 17.5% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and the same is allowed by proceeding against hypotheca and other assets of the defendants. iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms. iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 29th day of December, 2023)
Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI