Dismissed

M S Nandan Plaza Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank

DRT9 Nov 2022SA/358/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal by borrowers and a guarantor challenging bank recovery proceedings, including demand, possession, and auction notices, was dismissed. The court held that the applicants failed to deposit the due amount despite assurances and did not legally challenge the initial demands, making further actions lawful.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal stands dismissed. The actions initiated by the Respondent Bank are held lawful.

M S Nandan Plaza Hotels Pvt. Ltd. versus Baroda Rajasthan… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 358/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No.- 358/2022

¶5

M/s Nandan Plaza Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Having its Registered Office at Opposite Railway Station, Nimbaheda Road, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan Through its Director Gopal Lal Samdani Son of Shri Kanmal Samdani.

¶6

Gopal Lal Samdani Son of Shri Kanmal Samdani, Resident of Samdani Bhawan, Upparla Pada, Gandhi Chowk, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶7

………Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Having its branch office at Pratap Nagar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan through its Authorised Officer

¶10

..….. Respondent

¶11

Present:

¶12

Sh. Bhrigu Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Sh. R N Vijay, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

(Final Order)

(09.11.2022)

This SA was filed on 16.06.2022 by the SA applicant M/s Nandan Plaza Hotels Pvt. Ltd, through their director Sh. Gopal Lal Samdani and Sh. Gopal Lal Samdani in the capacity of a guarantor.

¶18

As per record, Annexure R/5 is the Demand Notice dated 25.11.2021, Annexure P/6 is Possession Notice dated 17.02.2022 and auction notice (Annexure P/10) was issued on 01.06.2022.

¶19

In the column of Limitation it is counted through sale notice dated 01.06.2022, the auction was scheduled on 23.06.2022 and amount involved as per Demand Notice was Rs. 8.21 Crore. The subject mortgaged property is situated at plot no. 12, 13,14,15,16 and 17, opposite railway station, Chittorgarh, in the name of Nandan Plaza Hotels. Availing credit facility is admitted in Para (vi) of the SA.

¶20

On 29.06.2022, it was informed by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank that no bid received in the light of auction notice dated 01.06.2022, through which the auction was scheduled on 23.06.2022, so the same resulted into failure.

¶21

Reply to the SA was filed, rejoinder was also filed.

¶22

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶23

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant raised various issues and challenged almost all the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank.

¶24

¶25

¶26

Along with SA representation/objection to Demand Notice, if any given by the SA applicant is not filed on record, therefore it is clear that the SA applicant failed to challenge the Demand Notice within given time frame, as they have not filed such objection/representation along with SA.

¶27

It is important to mention here that the Demand Notice was issued on 25.11.2021 and Possession Notice was issued on 17.02.2022 and after that SA was not filed as it was filed on 15.06.2022, when the sale notice (Annexure R/10) was issued by the Respondent on 01.06.2022, auction resulted into failure, therefore any objection with regard to auction is not to be entertained.

¶28

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank argued that the subject mortgaged property as per Possession notice dated 17.02.2022 is in the name of SA applicant No. 2 and Mr. Shyam Lal Samdani jointly but Mr. Shyam Lal Samdani is not impleaded as a necessary party as the SA applicant, So the SA is required to be dismiss on the ground of misjoinder of the parties.

¶29

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank argued that the SA applicant after receiving of the Demand Notice failed to deposit complete amount within the given time frame and they further failed to file any objection to Demand Notice therefore it is clear that they do not have any objection to the Demand raised by the Respondent Bank through Demand Notice.

¶30

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank further submitted that till the issuance of the auction notice, the SA applicant

¶31

¶32

¶33

failed to deposit any amount. He further submitted that the SA applicant gave various assurance in writing on the ground that they are ready and willing to deposit the amount but in fact they failed to deposit any amount despite having availed various opportunities and despite giving assurance by them, so SA applicant is not entitled for any leniency, actions initiated by the Respondent Bank are as per the law, so the SA is required to be dismiss with heavy cost.

¶34

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶35

Perused Annexure P/8, Letter dated 21.02.2022 written by the Applicant firm to Authorised Officer of the Respondent Bank informing therein that they are going to deposit an amount of Rs. 5.00 Lac and further to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 to 15 Lac within a weeks time therefore they prayed to defer the recovery proceedings.

¶36

An amount of Rs. 15.00 Lac was deposited on 21.02.2022 and after that on 15.03.2022 an amount of Rs. 10.00 Lac, on 31.03.2022 an amount of Rs. 5.00 Lac only was deposited so it is clear that against the Demand of Rs. 8,21,95,842/-, the applicant could deposit an amount of Rs. 30.00 Lac only, till today.

¶37

Later on, on 30.04.2022 the applicant again wrote a letter at Annexure P/9 through which they gave assurance to the Bank that they will deposit entire outstanding amount on or before 31.05.2022.

¶38

No amount was deposited in the light of letter dated 30.04.2022 but after that this SA was filed.

¶39

¶40

¶41

From the perusal of letters filed at Annexure P/8 and P/9 it is clear that at no point of time the SA applicant has challenged any of the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank or as challenged the amount as demanded by the Respondent Bank rather the applicant was giving assurance to deposit the amount and on these assurance, he was successful in getting deferment of the recovery proceedings, because till 31.05.2022, no auction notice was issued and physical possession of the subject mortgaged property was also not taken by the Respondent Bank.

¶42

Considering the amount which was more than Rs. 8.21 Crore, I am of the view that the SA applicant was required to deposit the amount as per assurances given by them through letter at Annexure R/8, Annexure P/9, Annexure P/10 but the SA applicant failed to honour their own words/assurance and he failed to deposit the amount even after assurance given by them, he came before this Tribunal and now challenged all the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank.

¶43

After considering entire documents, I am of the view that there is nothing illegal in the actions initiated by the Respondent bank, the SA applicant despite having availed sufficient opportunities and despite giving various assurance to the Respondent Bank, failed to deposit any amount, they did not object to the Demand and any of the Notice like Demand Notice and Possession Notice issued by the Respondent Bank so the SA applicant is duty bound to pay the entire outstanding amount.

¶44

¶45

¶46

Nothing is illegal in the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank, Therefore SA stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶47

Copy of the order be given free to the concerned parties.

¶48

File be place before Registrar for compliance, after compliance file be consigned to record as per rules.

¶49

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶50