Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Prabhu Dayal Bhaiya Lal Dixit

DRT9 Nov 2023OA/1161/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by State Bank of India against two defendants for recovery of an outstanding amount of Rs. 80 Lakhs, interest, and costs, restraining them from transferring properties and directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs. 80,45,804 with interest; injunction on transfer of assets; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S Prabhu Dayal Bhaiya Lal Dixit — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patel)

¶4

Originol Application No. - 1161122

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 3RD Floor, Zonat Office, Vijay Nagar, Jabatpur (M.P.) ..... Appticant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Prabhu Dayat Bhaiya Lat Dixit, Through its ProprietorRajendra Prasad Dixit, S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Dixit, Dixit Aiohalla, Near Katra Bazar, Tikamgarh; Also at- 8/102, Haridas Ward, Dixit Mohatla, Tikamgarh (M.P.); Also at- Bainarar Tigeta Jatara, Tikamgarh (M.P.)

¶8

1. Ashok Kumar Nayak, S/o Shri Ram Dhutare Nayak, Civil Lines, Tikamgarh (M.P.) Defendants

¶9

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Vivek Shukta, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶10

JUDG,YTENT

¶11

(Dated : 09s November,2O23l

¶12

The Appticant-Bank has fited the Present Original^Application u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act on 07109122against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 80,45,8M.fi)^{(RupeesEighty Lac, FourtyFive} Thousand, Eight Hundred and Four onty) atong^{withinterestand other reliefs} as stated.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that^{on the request of} Defendant No.-1, the Appticant^{Bank sanctionedCashCredit Limit of Rs. 5} Lac on 29104/2000 which was^{subsequenttyenhanced to Rs. 40 Lac on} 21tl1t11which was atso renewed^{from time to time lastty on 07l1Ot2O, e-} DFS Limit of Rs. 20 Lac on^{22102t16, FBWCTerm Loan underGuaranteed} Emergency Credit Line^{(GECL) of Rs. 11 Lac on07 110120and TermLoan of} Rs. 10 Lac under Pradhan^{Mantri MudraYojnaon October 201E. The} Appticant-Bank atso^{sanctionTermLoan of Rs.} Lac on 07 l12l^'12 which^was

¶14

¶15

oAtl6v22

¶16

ctosed on 1oto3l17.^{ln consideration of the aforesaid sanction of credit} facitities the Defendant^{No.-'l as borrower and Defendant No.-2 as guarantor} in addition to execution^{of loan and guarantee documents have also created} equitable mortgage over^{the immovabte property,i.e., ResidentiatPtot part} of Survey No.-245l3^{and 247lga Min-z, area admeasuring 34000sq'ft',} situated at Viltage'Tikamgarh,^{P.H. No.-10, R.N.M.-Tikamgarh,Block'} Tikamgarh, District-Tikamgarh^{(M.P.); betongingto DefendantNo.-2. The} Defendant No.-'l avaited the^{credit facititiesbut the accountsbecame} irregular. The Defendants^{faited to tiquidatethe outstanding dues despite} issuance of Legat Notice on 25107122^{by the Appticant Bank.The Appticant-} Bank has relied upon the documents^{at Ex. A-1 to A'27 whichwere proved by} Shri Manmohan Anand, Chief^Manager.

¶17

Despite seMce of notice, the Defendants^{neitherappeared nor} fited written statement. They were^{proceededex-Parte vide order dated} 3OtO1l23. There is therefore, no reason^{to disbelievethe contentionsof the} Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that^{the Defendantsare} jointty and severatty tiabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Applicant-Bank in its application^{has claimed interestat} contractua[ rate p.a. with monthty rests.^However, I feel it^{fair and} reasonabte to grant interest @9.50%^p.a. for cash credit limit, interest @7.50%^p.a. for e-DFS timit,^interest @7.50%^{p.a. for FBWECTermLoan} (GECL) and interest @10.50% p.a for term [oan, simpte pendentelite and future titl realization of the dues. The mortgaged property is liabte to be sold for recovery of amount due along with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶18

The Originat Apptication is allowed and it is ordered as under-

¶19

i) The Defendants do pay jointly and severally Rs. 80,45,804.00 (Rupees Eighty Lac, Fourty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Four only) together with pendentelite and future interest @9.50% p.a. for cash credit limit, interest @7.50% p.a. for e-DFS limit, interest @7.50% p.a. for FBWEC Term Loan (GECL) and interest @10.50% p.a for term loan simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 07109122, with costs titt its realization.

¶20

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to sett the mortgaged as well as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by rneans of injunction from

¶21

¶22

oA t161122

¶23

depleting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way dealing with their properties/assets without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank.

¶24

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The applicant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶25

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this Day of 09th November,2023.

¶26

( m Niwas Pateva ))'
Presidinc Officer

State Bank of India v. M/S Prabhu Dayal Bhaiya Lal Dixit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Prabhu Dayal Bhaiya Lal Dixit

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

Punjab National Bank versus Manasavi Publication

Axis Bank versus M/S Keladevi Publisher

Pawan Jain versus Punjab National Bank

Smt Manju Agrawal versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Rajesh Jain versus Indian Bank

Ms Pms Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank