Allowed

Bank of India v. M/s Rupjyoti Gas

DRT19 Oct 2023OA/132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involved an application by the Bank of India Tinsukia Branch for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor for non-repayment of loans sanctioned under various schemes. The Tribunal allowed the application, finding the claim valid and within limitation, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issued a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 29,64,851.53 with contingent interest; directed applicants to file cost memo within two weeks.

Bank of India versus M/s Rupjyoti Gas — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

O A l32no22lDRT€uwahati

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI

¶3

(North Eastern Region) (Tribunal of Assam, Nagatand, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachat pradesh & Tripura)

¶4

O.A. No. 13212022

¶5

ln the matter of - BANK OF INDIA Tinsukia Branch, Daily Bazar, Tinsukia, Assam-786125.

¶6

Applicant Vs.

¶7

M/S RUPJYOTI GAS,
A Proprietorship firm of lvlrs. Rupjyoti Baruah,
having its place of business at Rangagora Road,
Borguri, Tinsukia- 786125.

¶8

MRS. RUPJYOTI BARUAH,
Wife of Chintu Baruah, resident of Dhekiajuri,
Bongali Gaon, Hijuguri, Tinsukia-7861 92.

¶9

.',, ', ',., ',, ,., ', ',.,.,, Defendants

¶10

Presence of the Counsel:

¶11

For the Applicant : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Ms. Ellora Bharali, Advocates

¶12

For the Defendants r Ms. Sumi Kakoty, Mr. Jatin Saikia, Advocates (Right to file WS cum EA ctosed)

¶13

Dated :19t10t2023

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This is an apprication under section 19 of the Recovery of oebts Due to Banks and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993 fited by the BANK OF lNDlA, Tinsukta Branch, Oaily Bazat, Tinsukia, Assam_796125, with a prayer to issue Recovery Certilicaie for the sum of Rs. 29,64,851.53 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty One and paise Fifty Three) only as on 2Z.12.ZO21against the defendants with pendentelite and future interest thereon at contractual rate per annum with monthly rests till realization along with cost and other reljef

¶16

5 t ,,, S],o,,.a". A.},* Presroing offUr^{I o- !3 (} ORT, Gr/wahali

¶17

O.A. 1 32l2022lDRT4usahali

¶18

A few facts giving rise to the present application are as under.

¶19

The Defendant No. 1 is a Proprietorship Firm of Defendant No. 2 who availed the credit facility as borrower from the Applicant Bank.

¶20

The Defendant No.2 as Proprietor of Defendant No. 1 on 23.10.2019 had approached the Applicant Bank and requested for grant of a Cash Credit Facility under CGTMSE Scheme tor his business. ln consideration of the said request, the applicant Bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.25,00,000/- vide Sanction Letter dated 23.10.2019 to the Defendant No.1, upon her agreeing and undertaking to comply with and abide by the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The cash credit facility was repayable on demand. The loan was secured by various Security Documents exhibited by Defendants with interest @ 9.600/o p.a. with monthly rests subject to changes as per the Directives of RBUBank Policy from time to time. The loan account stands in the name of the Defendant No. 1.

¶21

ln consideration of granting and sanctioning of the said Cash Credit Limit of Rs.25,00,000/- to the Defendant No.'l and 2 had executed Demand Promissory Note for Rs.25,00,000/-, Hypothecation cum Loan Agreemenl dated 23.10.20'19 Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement of Plant and Machinery, stocks and Book debls dated 23.10.2019, Undertaking (L-516) dated 23.10.2019, Repo Based Lending Rate Agreement dated 23.10.2019 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶22

Again in consideration of granting and sanctioning of the said Cash Credit Limit oI Rs.25,00,0004 to the Defendant No.1 and 2 had executed Demand Promissory Note for Rs 25,00,000/- with an increased rate of inlerest @ 9.65%.

¶23

The Defendant no, 2 as the Proprietor of the defendant no. 1 flrm had again approached the applicant Bank for GECL Loan facility and afrer considering the said request, the Applicant Bank had sanctioned the Credit facility of Rs. 2,00,000.00 Lacs with interest @7.85ok (i.e.^'10lo above BOI RBLR presently 6.85%) per annum compounded monthly rests subject to change from time to time as per Banks guidelines. The said loan is repayable in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 6,360/- each

¶24

-';.wr Lart^{. ivl, ,r} e,""iains offiJr9^{ln 9)} ,/ DRT. Guwahati

¶25

OA 132/2022loRT'G0wahati

¶26

commencing from next 12 months after disbursement i.e. 30.06.2021 under the said agreement.

¶27

ln consideration of granting and sanctioning of the said Credit Facility of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Defendant No.1 and 2 had executed Demand Promissory Note for Rs.2,00,000/-; Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement dated 19.06.2020; Undertaking (L- 516) dated 19.06.2020; lnstallment Letter dated 19.06.2020; Declaration of financial insufficiency and underlaking for securities dated 19.06.2020: Undertaking L- 516, Repo Based Lending Rate Agreement dated 19.06.2020 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶28

The Defendant no. 2 as the Proprietor of the defendant no.1 firm had again approached the applicant Eank for Funded lnterest Term Loan facility and after considering the said request, the Applicant Bank had sanctioned the Funded lnterest Term Loan facility of Rs.1,26,071.22 upon his agreeing and undertaking to comply with and abide by the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The loan was secured by various Security Documents exhibited by Defendants with interest @ 9.95% p.a. with Monthly rests subject to changes as^per the Directives of RBUBank Policy from time to time.

¶29

ln consideration of^granting and sanctioning of the said Funded lnterest Term Loan Facility of Rs.1,26,071..221- lo the Defendant No.1 and 2 had executed Demand Promissory Note for Rs.1,26,071.221- daled 27.08.2020; Agreement for Funded lnterest Term Loan dated 27.08.2020: Supplementary Deed of Term Loan dated 27 .08.20201lnstallmenl Letter dated 27 .08.2020 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶30

The defendants had availed the said loan facilities frcm the applicant bank but have not^paid the outstanding loan amount as per terms and conditions as agreed upon with the applicant bank, in spite of repeated demands and request by the applicant bank. As the defendants failed to repay the loan amount, the said loan accounts became NPA on 31.03.2021. After the accounts became NPA the applicant

¶31

ehtoela34,ql"L,1 Presidins Otrcbl^i" '' i/ oRT, Guwahala

¶32

¶33

O.A 1322022loRT-cuwahari

¶34

bank issued notices for repayment of the due amount, but the defendants failed to repay the Loan amount.

¶35

The applicant bank thus became constrained to file the present Original Application for the recovery of Rs. 29,64,851.53 (Rupees Twenty Nins Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty One and paise Fifty Three) onty as on 22.12.2021 along with interest and cost ofthe application.

¶36

After filing of the OA the Tribunal issued notices upon the defendants through registered post and the applicant bank filed service report on 2A.05.2022 and brought on record the postal receipts along with track consignment report. The learned counsel for defendants had appeared on the same day on 2g.05.2022 and sought time for filing Vakalatnama and written statement cum evidence on affidavit. Thereafler, the case was listed on several occasion, but the written statement cum evidence on affidavit have not been filed by the defendants. Hence, their right of the file written statement cum evidence on affidavit was closed on 16.09.2022 and the matter was fixed for hearing.

¶37

Supporting the claim of the applicant bank Sri Ring_Tshaw Daw Daulagupu, Deputy zonal Manager of the Appricant Bank has tiled evidence on affidavit coupled with the security documents marked as Exhibit AW-1/j to AW_.1/23 supporting the claim of the applicant bank.

¶38

Heard the learned munsel for the applicanl bank who prayed for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants as per pleadings made in the Application, supported by evidence on affidavit of their witness who affirmed on oath the execution of the security and other documents by rhe defendants and arso execution of their own documents relied upon, which have been marked exhibits.

¶39

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the document filed by the appticant bank are supporting the ctaim of the applicant bank and estabtishing the liability of the defendants. lt is proved that the defendants are jointy and severafly riabre to pay to the appricant bank the craim made

¶40

\1.,t, CL.a^.a,,9),J* e,""id,nnlfnlt'^{2 )} ,/ORT. Girwahar

¶41

O A 132/2022IORT Guwahali

¶42

in the Original Application. The loan was obtained and documents have been executed on 23.10.2019, 04.11.2019,^'19.06.2020, & 27.08.2020.Ihe account became NPA on 31.03.2021 and the OA has been filed on 04.04.2022. Hence, the OA is fited well within the period of limitation and this Tribunat having a jurisdiction to adjudicate the Original Application.

¶43

Considering the unchallenged/unrebutted version of Sri Ring-Tshaw Daw Oaulagupu, the applicant's witness and all the documents marked as exhibits, including duly certified copy of the statement of account along with interest calculation sheet maintained by the applicant Bank in it,s regular crurse of business, I hold that the applicant is entifled to get the Recovery Certificate as prayed for.

¶44

ln the result, the present Originat Application No. 132 ol2022 is allowed wiih cost as under!

¶45

i) The defendants No. 1 & 2 are join y and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank a sum of Rs. 29,64,851.53 (Rupees Twenty_Nine Lakhs Sixty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty_One and paiso Fifty-Three) only with pendentelite and future interesl @9.60% p.a. with monthty rests ftom 23122021 till the date of full paymenurealization and also cost of the application.

¶46

iD The charge of the certificated amount be kept alive on hypothecated properties as described in Schedule-A of the OA till the amount is reatized in full

¶47

iii) The charge of the certificated amount be kept alive on hypothecated properties as described in Schedule_B of the OA till the amount is realized in full.

¶48

iv) The applicant bank is entired to proceed againsr the secured items lowards recovery ofthe debts.

¶49

v) The applicant bank is also enti ed to proceed against the personal assets and

¶50

properties ofthe defendant towards recovery of the dues.

¶51

Slhal"d^o--^-I"4 - ,.,n-o[I;la^2J C DRT, Guwahati

¶52

¶53

o.A l3zt2o2zDRT€Ul€n.0

¶54

vi) The applicant bank is entifled to the costs of the O.A. which includes the advocate fees of the applicant bank. Applicant is directed to file the cost memo within 2 weeks from today.

¶55

vii) lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly for a sum Rs. 29,64,851.53 (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakhs Sixty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fiftyone and paiss Fifty-Thres) only in favour of the applicant bank against the defendants No. 1&2

¶56

viii) Communicale copy of this orderto the concemed parties.

¶57

This order is dictialed and corrected by the undersigned.

¶58

Judgment dated .l gth October 2023, signed and pronounced in the Tribunat

¶59

loday under my signalure.

¶60

copy of the JudgmenuFinar order be uproaded in the Tribunars website and file be consigned to Record Room.

¶61

'l-, I r [aLvl.{t ?,*1",, (shivsharan JM{r;'l ,l Presiding Ofticer l/ DRT, cuwahati.

Bank of India v. M/s Rupjyoti Gas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/s Rupjyoti Gas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Vicky Gupta

State Bank of India versus Sunil Arora

State Bank of India versus Naresh Pal and Anr.

Canara Bank versus M/S Suswa Infoway Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Srvc Enterprises

Indian Bank versus Renar Enterprises