STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/S.LINEAR COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD Rep by Its Managing Director Mr S Dileep Chandra on 25 January 2020

(12) ✓

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU**

Dated this the 25^th day of January 2020

**:Present:

Shri K Ravindran Nair

Hon'ble Presiding Officer

In-charge-DRT-II**

**T.A.No.1237/2017

(O.A.No.1773/2016-DRT-I)**

**BETWEEN:**

**State bank of India,**

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB),

1^st Floor, Bengaluru City Branch, J.C.Road, Bengaluru- 560 002.

**Represented by its Chief Manager**

Mrs. Usha Jacob

W/o. Jacob Zacharia

... APPLICANT

**AND:**

**1. M/s Linear Communications Pvt. Ltd. (LCPL)**

No.257/1, 1^st Floor,

Above Apex Bank, Hosur

Main Road, 13t Cross,

Wilson Garden, Bengaluru-560 027

Represented by its Managing Director.

**Also at:** No.4025/4026, 2^nd Floor, K.R.Road Opp. UCO Bank, 7^th Block, Jayanagar West Bengaluru- 560 070.

**2. Mr. S. Dileep Chandra**

S/o. Sitharam Shastry

**3. Smt. Bharathi Dileep Chandra**

W/o Dileep Chandra

**D2 and D3 r/at:**

No.1606, SNN Raj Lake View,

BTM 2^nd Stage

Bengaluru- 560 076.

...DEFENDANTS

**Counsels on record/appeared for:**

**Applicant** : M/s. Ravishankar Associates **D 1 & D2** : Ex-parte **FINAL ORDERS**

The present Application came to be registered on 21.04.2016 and transferred to DRT-II, Bengaluru, on the point of jurisdiction and renumbered as Transfer Application No.1237/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,06,39,930.28/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty paise Twenty-Eight only) from the Defendants together with interest and cost.

2. The case of the applicant bank is that Defendant No.1 is a private limited company represented by its Directors. Defendants No.2 and 3 have approached the applicant bank seeking financial assistance for Cash Credit Loan. The applicant bank considered their request and sanctioned CCL of

Rs.225 lac, vide sanction letter dated 10.01.2011. Defendants have executed necessary documents in favour of the applicant bank. After availing the loan, the defendants failed to regularize the loan account and also failed to pay the interest/installments, and he did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., letter of arrangement, sanction letter, guarantee agreement, revival letters, legal notice, and certified copy of loan account extract etc. The Applicant bank has issued legal notice dated 01.02.2016 to the defendants, for which the defendants have not taken any steps to clear the dues. Hence, the O.A was filed in DRT-I and now numbered as TA.1237/2017 upon transfer to DRT-II.

3. Further the defendants agreed to repay the above loan with variable rates of interest, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and to keep the account regular by paying installments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

4. The defendants after utilizing the entire loan proceeds for the above said purpose have failed to make the repayments of the loan dues as agreed, not serviced the interest thereon as per the terms and conditions agreed by them and became chronic defaulters and hence, the recovery process is initiated against the defendants to recover the dues.

5. In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that, Defendants 1 and 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,06,39,930.28/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty paise Twenty-Eight only).

6. After filing the OA, summons were sent through RPAD on Defendants No.1 and 2 and the same were returned with postal shara "addressee not known". Thereafter summons published in two leading dailies against the Defendants No.1 and 2. Even when the Defendants No.1 and 2 were called out, they remained absent and hence, placed *ex parte*.

7. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, it's Chief Manager, Sri. A.Pranava, S/o. A Narasimha Bhat, has filed his affidavit by 5TA.No.1237/2017 in

way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and marked at Ex. A-1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex.A-2 and 11 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-13.

1. 8. No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.

2. 9. Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/applicant bank heard and perused the records of the case.

3. 10. Following points arise for my consideration:

1. a) Whether Plaintiff/applicant bank proves its case as contended in the plaint/application?

2. b) What order?

4. 11. For the following reasons, I answer the above referred points in the following manner:

**REASONS**

1. 12. Sri. A. Pranava, S/o. A. Narasimha Bhat., Chief Manager of the applicant bank came to be examined as AW-1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterates the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above referred Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-13 which clearly establish the case of the applicant bank to allow the present TA. Added to this, the

defendants remained absent; hence it is to be construed that the defendants have admitted the entire case pleaded by the applicant bank as sought in the present TA.

13. Therefore, for these reasons, present TA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the applicant bank.