Allowed

State Bank of India v. Rajput Pyro Industries

DRT14 Dec 2023OA/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant-bank's original application against four defendants for recovery of Rs. 44,93,468/- with future interest, as defendants failed to appear and evidence established the claim within limitation.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 44,93,468/- with future interest @ 8% p.a.; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and recover debt.

State Bank of India versus Rajput Pyro Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 30/10/2021 Registered on: 04/05/2022 Decided on: 14/12/2023 Duration: Y M Ds 2 – 1 - 14

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL At Aurangabad.

¶3

Original Application No. 108 of 2022

¶4

State Bank of India,

¶5

a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1995 having its Local Head Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 and one of its branch Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Aurangabad, Plot No.1, Ground floor, Administrative Building, Town Centre, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its authorized signatory Shri Ravindra Jaivantrao Dabhadkar, Manager & City Case Officer

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Rajput Pyro Industries, a partnership firm at plot No. D-187/8, Shendra Five Star MIDC, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶9

¶10

Mrs Ratna Dilipsing Rajput, age major occup. business, one of the partners of M/s. Rajput Pyro Industries & mortgagor, R/o Flat No. D-2—11, 3^rd floor, D-Type Building, Samyak Arcade, Block No. 12-B, 12-C & 12-D, Town Centre, Cannought Place, CIDCO, Aurangabad

¶11

(Madkar) (OA No. 108/2022) Page 1 of 6

¶12

Mr Vikram Dilipsing Rajput, age major occup. business, one of the partners of M/s. Rajput Pyro Industries, R/o Flat No. D-2-11, 3^rd floor, D-Type building, Samyak Arcade, Block No. 12-B, 12-C & 12-D, Town Centre, Cannought Place, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 4. Miss Poonam Dilipsing Rajput, age major occup. business, one of the partners of M/s. Rajput Pyro Industries, R/o Flat No. D-2-11, 3^rd floor, D-Type building, Samyak Arcade, Block No. 12-B, 12-C & 12-D, Town Centre, Cannought Place, CIDCO, Aurangabad. … Defendants APPEARANCES : For Applicant : Mrs. Archana Karadkhedkar - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer . Pronounced on : 14^th December 2023 O R D E R 1. The applicant-bank filed the present original application

¶13

(Madkar) (OA No. 108/2022) Page 2 of 6

¶14

against defendants No.1 to 4 for recovery of sum of Rs. 44,93,468/- (Rs. forty four lakhs ninety three thousand four hundred sixty eight only) towards outstanding of loan amount availed by them for business of manufacturer/exporters/ suppliers/ retailers of molded plastic hangers, with future interest @11.25% p.a., with monthly rests, from 29/10/2021 till the date of realization and, in default, for sale of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the orig. application. It is pleaded by the applicant that defendants No.1 to 4 obtained cash credit loan facility of Rs. 37.00 lakhs for aforesaid business on 05/06/2018 on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amount in favour of applicant-bank, as enumerated in the Orig. Appln., with assurance to repay it with agreed interest thereon. However, the defendants could not follow the repayment programme and failed to repay it, which resulted into classifying the loan account as NPA and issuing demand notice on 03/04/2021. It is pleaded that in the meantime, defendants

¶15

(Madkar) (OA No. 108/2022) Page 3 of 6

¶16

executed Revival letter U/S. 18 of the Limitation Act on

¶17

05/05/2021 and acknowledged the loan amount due against them.

¶18

Though the defendants served with summons of the application by hand, vide service affidavit Exh. 8, failed to appear in the matter and, therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against

¶19

them.

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the orig. application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶22

The applicant-bank filed evidence on affidavit (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 19 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.2 to A.W. 19 on behalf of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against all the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the original application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant-bank is entitled for

¶23

(Madkar) (OA No. 108/2022) Page 4 of 6

¶24

the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of the documents on record shows that the application is filed within limitation. Hence I hold that all the defendants are liable to pay to applicantbank the claim amount claimed in the orig. application with future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic-19 long period and costs.

¶25

In the result, the present orig. application No. 108 of 2022 is allowed with costs, as under:

¶26

(A) Defendants No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 44,93,468/- (Rs. forty four lakhs ninety three thousand four hundred sixty eight only) with future interest @ 8 (eight) % p.a., simple, from 29/10/2021 till the date of realization.

¶27

(B) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the orig. application towards realization of their dues;

¶28

(C) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of all the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

(D) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶30

(Madkar) (OA No. 108/2022) Page 5 of 6

¶31

(E) The applicant-bank shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶32

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶33

(G) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶34

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 14/12/2023 A urangabad

¶35

(Madkar) (OA No. 108/2022) Page 6 of 6

State Bank of India v. Rajput Pyro Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Rajput Pyro Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Mangalabai Santosh Chaudhar

State Bank of India versus Salasar Alloys Industries and Another

Bank of Baroda versus Tausif Agency

Union Bank of India versus M/s Annapurna Pulses

Rbl Bank Limited versus Tanmay Trading Company

State Bank of India versus Vishwasrao