Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs MALLICK CHEMISTS on 29 December 2023
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 29th day of December, 2023
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No.562 of 2022
(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.223 of 2021 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.562 of 2022)
Canara Bank
(Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
Aminjikarai Branch
Rep. by its Chief Manager and Principal Officer No.6, Govindan Street, Ayyavoo Colony Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029
…Applicant
Versus
1.
M/s Mallick Chemists
Rep. by its Partners Mr. K. Murali & Mr. Venkatesh No.227, NSC Bose Road Chennai – 600 001
2.
K. Murali, S/o Krishnan
No.227, NSC Bose Road
Chennai – 600 001
3.
Mr. K. Venkatesh
S/o Krishnan
No.227, NSC Bose Road
Chennai – 600 001
4.
M/s 7 Eleven Shipping Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Directors Mr. R. Kumar, S. Kirubakaran Mrs. K. Lalitha & Mrs. Yuvashree At No.53/9, R.K. Nagar 1st Man Road, Kodungaiyur Chennai – 600 118
5.
Mr. R. Kumar
S/o Ramanathan
No.178, Lake New Road
West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033
6.
Mr. S. Kirubakaran
S/o Soundharajan
No.88/50, Phase II, Sami Court Apartment Parchalaiamman Koil Street Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106
7.
Mrs. K. Lalitha
W/o R. Kumar
No.178, Lake View Road
West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033
8.
Mrs. R. Yuvashree
W/o M. Rajakumar
New No.179, New Lane, P.H. Road
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010
…Defendants
Counsel for the Applicant Bank
Counsel for Defendants
:
:
M/s P. Sreenivasulu
Ex-parte
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 above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.1,95,78,357.80p with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendant jointly and severally and also by ordering sale of the schedule A properties and schedule B movables.
2. The OA was originally filed before DRT I and later stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.
3. The case of the applicant is that the 1st defendant partnership firm with 2nd and 3rd defendant as it’s partners and defendant 4 to 8 as guarantors. The 4th defendant the Corporate Guarantors with defendants 5 to 8, its directors had also extended security by mortgage of the property belonged to the 4th defendant. By extending the above securities, the eartwhile syndicate bank sanctioned credit facility of Rs.10 Lakhs, which stood enhanced from time to time to Rs.85 Lakhs. In respect of the mortgage of properties belonged to 4th defendant, it is admitted that the same was already deposited in various credit facilities availed by them and in respect of the same, it is further submitted that the applicant had already filed an OA seeking recovery of amounts due therein.
4. In respect of the credit facility also, it is contented that the respondents failed in repayment, resulting the account becoming NPA. It is also stated that despite repeated reminders, the defendants failed in making repayment forcing the applicant to approach this Tribunal by filing this OA.
5. Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 11.7.2022 and the OA is proceeded exparte.
6. The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A33 and got the same marked in evidence.
7. Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contention as taken in the OA 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 OA claim?
(ii) What orders are to be passed? Both these issues are gone into and decided together.
8. 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 evidence 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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their/ his assets (including the scheduled property) the claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.
9. In view of the finding as entered above: - (a) TA No.562 of 2022 stands allowed.
(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.1,95,78,357.80 with future and pendent lite interest @13.2% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly and severally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA from the defendant and also by selling the schedule properties and other assets of the defendants.
(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants 2, 3, 5 to 8 are personally liable for all such amounts due under the Loan Accounts.
(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final 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 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 29th day of December, 2023) Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI