IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 4^th day of March, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON RA 183/2018 &

RA 5/2020 (both appeals arising out of OA 654/2016 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

I. RA 183/2018:

Between State Bank of India SME Centre, No.5, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Chennai 600 032.

Now migrated to:

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Represented by its City Case Officer, A. Agnes Bharathi, W/o J. Leo Gnanaraj, “Red Cross Buildings”, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 8.

…..Appellant Bank And M/s Pacific Print Forms, Rep. by Proprietrix J. Kavitha, No.66, Panchayat Road, 1^st floor, Perungudi, Chennai 600 096.

…..Respondent Counsel for Appellant Bank : M/s M.L. Ganesh & Co.

Counsel for Respondent : M/s Rohini Ravikumar& Co.

II. RA 5/2020 Between M/s Pacific Print Forms, Rep. by Proprietrix J. Kavitha, No.66, Panchayat Road, 1^st floor, Perungudi, Chennai 600 096.

…..Appellant And State Bank of India Rep. by its Manager SME Centre, No.5, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Chennai 600 032.

…..Respondent Bank Counsel for Appellant : M/s Rohini Ravikumar & Co.

Counsel for Respondent Bank : M/s M.L. Ganesh & Co.

COMMON ORDER

1. These appeals viz. RA 183/2018 and RA 5/2020 are filed under Section 20 of RDDB & FI Act against the order passed in OA 654/2016 passed by Ld.

Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai on 6.8.2018.

2. Appeal RA 183/2018 is filed by the applicant bank in OA 654/2016 and Appeal RA 5/2020 is filed by the respondent in OA 654/2016.

3. The State Bank of India filed OA No.654/2016 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai against M/s Pacific Print Forms for recovery of a sum of Rs.72,16,811/- together with interest at 13% per annum with monthly rests and for other relief. After contest, Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai held that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.31,66,811/- instead of Rs.72,16,811/- as claimed in the OA, with interest at 12% p.a. (simple) from the date of OA till the date of realization together with costs. Challenging this part of the order, i.e., against the rejection of part of the claim and reduction of part of rate of interest, bank has filed RA No.183/2018. Challenging the order that applicant bank is entitled for recovery of Rs.31,66,811/- with interest at 12% p.a. (simple), the defendants viz., filed RA 5/2020.

4. The case of the appellant bank before Tribunal below, in brief, is that respondent i.e. Pacific Print Forms approached the bank for sanction of Cash Credit Facility and Term Loan facility since the year 2008 and the bank sanctioned CC Limit facility and Term Loan Facility and renewed/enhanced the said loans from time to time. These loan facilities were enhanced to Rs.81.28 lakhs on 7.12.2012under the following heads:

(i) Cash Credit Limit of Rs.50,00,000/-

(ii) Term Loan I of Rs.3,28,000/-

(iii) Term Loan II of Rs.23,00,000/-

(iv) Bank Guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/-

5. In addition to these enhanced facilities, respondent availed Rs.10.00 lakhs under SME Care. For the loan facilities availed, respondent executed necessary loan documents such as hypothecation agreement, etc. and created equitable mortgage of schedule property by deposit of title deeds. As respondent defaulted in repayment of the loan, that necessitated the bank to classify the loan account as a NPA. A legal notice was issued on 3.10.2016 calling upon the respondent to repay the due. Since repayment was not made, bank filed OA 654/2016 for recovery of the due amount.

6. The case of the respondent before Tribunal below, in brief, is that there is no dispute with record to availing loan facilities as detailed in the application. It is submitted that Cash Credit and Term Loan Facilities and Bank guarantee were covered under CGTMSE scheme. In the sanction letter dated 3.3.2014, it was mentioned that CC Limit of Rs.50.00 lakhs, Bank Guarantee of Rs.5.00 lakhs, Term Loan I of Rs.3.28 lakhs and Term Loan II of Rs.23.00 lakhs were squarely covered under CGTMSE Scheme. Loans unde