Allowed

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. Pawan Trading Company

DRT20 Sept 2023OA/158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Limited for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 59,68,810 with interest against the borrower and guarantors who failed to pay dues and appeared ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 59,68,810 with interest at 13.50% p.a. within 60 days, with provision for recovery from assets and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus Pawan Trading… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

O. A. NO. 158 of 2022

¶2

Registered on: 27.04.2022 Decided on: 20.09.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 158 of 2022

¶4

CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE ) LIMITED, Acting in its capacity as Trustee of ) CFMARC Trust 1- GPPSB Represented by its ) Authorised Signatory Mr. Kripa Shanker Lal ) Having registered office at: A/3, 5^th Floor, Safal ) Profitaire, Near Prahlad Nagar Garden, ) Ahmedabad-380015, Gujarat. And Corporate ) At: 1^st Floor, Wakefield House, Sprott Road, ) Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ) ...APPLICANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. PAWAN TRADING CO., Borrower ) A proprietorship concern situated at Survey No. ) 494, Shop No. A5/A6, Sapgaon, PO Gotheghar, ) Tal. Shahapur, Dist. Thane, Maharashtra-421 601. ) Represented by its proprietor Mr. Pawankumar ) Savarmal Agrawal, Residing at: Shivshakti Rice ) Mill Compound, Pandit Naka, At & Post ) Gotheghar, Taluka- Shahapur, Dist Thane ) Maharashtra – 421 601. ) 2. MR. NIKHIL RAHDHESHYAM AGRAWAL )

¶7

Page 1 of 8

¶8

O. A. NO. 158 of 2022

¶9

Guarantor Residing at: Shivshakti Rice )
Mill Compound, Pandit Naka, At & Post )
Gotheghar, Taluka- Shahapur, Dist Thane )
Maharashtra – 421 601. )
3 . MR. RADHEHYAM SAVARMAL AGRAWAL,)
Guarantor and Mortgagor Residing at )
Shivshakti Rice Mill Compound, Pandit Naka, )
At & Post Gotheghar, Taluka- Shahapur, Dist. )
Thane, Maharashtra – 421 601. )
...DEFENDANTS
________________________________________________________________
Counsel for the Applicant : Advocate Neelanshu Roy i/b
Sirius Legal.
Counsel for the Defendants : Ex-parte
J U D G M E N T

¶10

The Original Application has been filed by the Applicant for recovery Rs.59,68,810/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ten only) with further interest @13.50% p.a. with monthly rests from 16.01.2022 till its realization.

¶11

Facts as succinctly set out in the OA are that the debt and financial assets pertaining to the Defendants, alongwith all rights, title, interests and benefits have been unconditionally and irrevocable

¶12

Page 2 of 8

¶13

O. A. NO. 158 of 2022

¶14

assigned, transferred and released by G P Parsik Sahakari Bank Ltd. in favour of the Applicant vide registered Assignment Agreement dated 18.03.2020.

¶15

It is stated that the Assignor Bank through its Padagha Branch, sanctioned the following secured credit facilities to Defendant No.1 vide two sanction letter dated 04.03.2016:

¶16

a. Medium Term Loan of Rs. 75 Lakhs

¶17

b. Cash Credit of Rs. 50 Lakhs

¶18

Aggregating to Rs. 125 Lakhs

¶19

In consideration of sanction the aforesaid medium term loan, the Defendants executed the following loaning and security documents on 15.03.2016:

¶20

a. Secured Term Loan Agreement executed by Defendant No. 1 to 3.

¶21

b. Letter of lien and set off executed by Defendant No. 1 (through its proprietor)

¶22

c. Letter of Continuity executed by Defendant No.1 (through its proprietor)

¶23

d. Deed of Hypothecation executed by Defendant No.1 (through its proprietor)

¶24

e. Deed of Hypothecation of Book Debts executed by Defendant No. 1 (through its proprietor)

¶25

Page 3 of 8

¶26

O. A. NO. 158 of 2022

¶27

In consideration of sanction the aforesaid cash credit facility of Rs.50 lakhs, the Defendants executed the following loaning and security documents on 15.03.2016:

¶28

a. Secured Term Loan Agreement executed by Defendant No. 1 to 3.

¶29

b. Letter of lien and set off executed by Defendant No. 1 (through its proprietor)

¶30

c. Letter of Continuity executed by Defendant No.1 (through its proprietor)

¶31

d. Deed of Hypothecation executed by Defendant No.1 (through its proprietor)

¶32

e. Deed of Hypothecation of Book Debts executed by Defendant No. 1 (through its proprietor).

¶33

It is further stated that to secure the aforesaid facilities, a mortgage deed dated 08.03.2016 has been executed between the Defendant No.1 & 3 and the bank.

¶34

It is further stated that Defendant No.1 approached the bank, in and around March, 2017 for renewal of existing Cash Credit facility. Pursuant to the said request, the Assignor Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit (Renewal) facility for Rs.50 Lakhs by vide Sanction letter dated 29.03.2017.

¶35

Page 4 of 8

¶36

O. A. NO. 158 of 2022

¶37

In consideration of sanction the aforesaid cash credit facility, the Defendants executed the following loaning and security documents on 30.03.2017.

¶38

a. Secured Term Loan Agreement executed by Defendant No. 1 to 3.

¶39

b. Letter of lien and set off executed by Defendant No. 1 (through its proprietor)

¶40

c. Letter of Continuity executed by Defendant No.1 (through its proprietor)

¶41

d. Deed of Hypothecation executed by Defendant No.1 (through its proprietor)

¶42

e. Deed of Hypothecation of Book Debts executed by Defendant No. 1 (through its proprietor).

¶43

f. Letter of Guarantee executed by Defendant No.2 & 3.

¶44

It is stated that the aforesaid credit facility sanctioned by the bank vide sanctioned letter dated 04.03.2016 & 29.03.2017 are inter alia secured by way of mortgage of immovable property belonging to Defendant No.3 situated at Non-agricultural plot of land belonging Plot No. A5 adm. 1240.68 sq.yards and Plot No. A6 adm.120.70 sq.yards aggregating to 2526.38 sq.yards or thereabout, out of Gat No. 494 (Part) situated within the village limits of Sapgaon, Taluka Shahpur, registration Sub-District Murbad, District Thane, along with the factory/Godown structures bearing

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

O. A. NO. 158 of 2022

¶47

Grampanchayat Sapgaon House No. 363A adm.13216 sq.feet and House No. 363B adm. 2360 sq.feet constructed. The aforesaid credit facility also secured by hypothecated all machineries and goods (at Vasai), stocks in trade and machineries (at mill shed) and book debts, belonging to Defendant No.1.

¶48

It is also stated that the Defendants issued an acknowledgment of debt in favour of the Bank on 26.12.2017 and acknowledged their indebtedness to the Bank for the total sum of Rs.1,06,44,270/-.

¶49

However, after availing the said loan facilities, the Defendants failed to adhere the financial discipline and neglected to make the payment of the outstanding dues. Thereafter, the Assignor Bank issued two separate demand notices dated 08.02.2018 and called upon the Defendants to pay the outstanding dues but they failed to pay the dues. After assignment of loan in favour of the Applicant on 18.03.2020, the Applicant issued loan recall notice dated 29.10.2018 and called upon the Defendants to clear the outstanding dues but they failed to pay the dues. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶50

Notices were issued to the Defendants. Despite service, none appeared for the Defendants nor filed the WS thus, they were proceed ex-parte vide order dated 03.07.2023.

¶51

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed through Zuber Khan Authorized Signatory.

¶52

Page 6 of 8

¶53

O. A. NO. 158 of 2022

¶54

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record.

¶55

The witness of the Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant Bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the Defendants. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the Applicant Bank and the Applicant Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of Defendant No.1 to 3 is joint and several.

¶56

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed against the Defendant No.1 to 3.

¶57

O R D E R

¶58

(i) I allow the present OA and direct the Defendant No.1 to 3 to pay to the Applicant Bank, jointly and severally, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs.59,68,810/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ten only) with further interest @13.50% p.a. with monthly rests from 16.01.2022 till its realization.

¶59

(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged properties, hypothecated assets as well as other personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendants.

¶60

Page 7 of 8

¶61

O. A. NO. 158 of 2022

¶62

(iii) Defendants are hereby directed not to deal with their properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶63

(iv) Defendants shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶64

(v) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶65

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

¶66

File be consigned to record.

¶67

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 20.09.2023 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.

¶68

SP/-

¶69

Page 8 of 8

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. Pawan Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. Pawan Trading Company

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

Canara Bank versus Kishor

Sangita James Gaikwad versus the Collector /

Canara Bank versus Anantkumar Harichand Bhadake

Mrs Bindiya Wallia versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Anil Seshadri Iyengar versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Ms India Steel Works Limited versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited