Allowed

State Bank of India v. Salasar Alloys Industries and Another

DRT13 Dec 2023OA/160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank’s claim for recovery of Rs. 1.24 crore outstanding loan. The court found the defendants' denial of document execution unproved and their claim of forced signature untimely. The bank was directed to proceed against mortgaged properties and issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,24,00,833/- with 8% p.a. interest; ENTITLED to proceed against mortgaged/personal properties; Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Salasar Alloys… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 03/03/2022 Registered on: 30/05/2022 Decided on: 13/12/2023 Duration: Y M Ds 1 - 9 - 11

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL At Aurangabad.

¶3

Original Application No. 160 of 2022

¶4

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its local head Office at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai and one of its Branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, at Aurangabad through one of its Officer i.e. City Case Officer Shri Abhay Shridhar Boradkar Harbola, age 47 years occup. service as City Case Officer, State Bank of India, Branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Aurangabad and havin authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶5

….Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Salasar Alloys Industries & another through its Proprietor Mrs Neetu Vishal Deo R/o Plot No. D-175, Shendra Five Star MIDC area, Shendra Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad - 431164

¶8

Mrs Neetu Vishal Deo, age 38 years occup. business

¶9

R/o Flat No. 2, Sukhkarta Residency, near Ganesh Temple, Pannalal Nagar, Aurangabad Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad – 431 005 Mob. No. 9823230565

¶10

(Madkar) (OA No. 160/2022) Page 1 of 7

¶11

Mr Vishal Vasant Deo, age 38 years occup. business R/o Flat No. 2, Sukhkata Residency, near Ganesh Temple, Pannalal Nagar, Aurangabad Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad – 431005 Mob. No. 9822912292 … Defendants

¶12

APPEARANCES :

¶13

For Applicant : Mr. Arun V. Rakh - Advocate For Defendants Mr S.P. Katneshwarkar, Adv.

¶14

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer .

¶15

Pronounced on : 13^th December 2023

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The applicant-bank filed the present original application against defendants No.1 to 3 for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,24,00,833/- (Rs. one crore twenty four lakhs eight hundred thirty three only) towards outstanding of loan amounts availed by them for the business and purchase of machinery, with future interest @ 11.40% for cash credit loan and @ 12% p.a. for medium term loan, with monthly rest, from

¶18

05/01/2022 till the date of realization and, in default, for sale of the

¶19

(Madkar) (OA No. 160/2022) Page 2 of 7

¶20

mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the orig. application. It is pleaded that defendants obtained cash credit loan facility of Rs.50,00,000/- and medium term loan of Rs. 75,00,000/making total Rs. 1,25,00,000/- for aforesaid purposes on 05/09/2019, which again got enhanced by defendants upto Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (Rs. one crore thirty lakhs only) on 30/04/2020. Thereafter, again the defendants got the loan limit extended upto Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rs. one crore forty lakhs only) vide arrangement letter dated 17/06/2020. However, the defendants did not follow the repayment programme as agreed, which resulted into classifying the loan accounts as NPA on 23/10/2021 and ultimately in issuing legal demand notice on 11/01/2022. However, the defendants did not pay any heed to it and thereby applicant compelled to file the original application for recovery of the amount, as aforesaid.

¶21

The defendants appeared in the matter and filed their written statement at Exh.9 denying the total claim of the applicant and execution of all relevant documents, as narrated by the applicant-bank.

¶22

It is contended that the claim is not maintainable and it is time barred.

¶23

(Madkar) (OA No. 160/2022) Page 3 of 7

¶24

It is further contended that the applicant charged excessive rate of interest. The loan amount is not disbursed in time and forcefully obtained their signatures on the sanction letter and other documents. They have not deposited title deeds at the time of alleged execution of equitable mortgage deed. Defendants No.2 & 3 did not execute guarantee deed as alleged. It is contended that they have filed Securitization Application No. 147/2021 challenging illegal initiation of measures U/S. 13(2) & (4) of the SARFAESI Act, which is pending before this Tribunal. It is contended that defendants have sold the property as per order of the Tribunal in the said S.A. and deposited Rs. 29.00 lakhs in the loan account. Thus, the defendants lastly prayed to dismiss the application.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶26

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

¶27

The applicant-bank filed evidence on affidavit (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 20 documents,

¶28

(Madkar) (OA No. 160/2022) Page 4 of 7

¶29

which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 20 on behalf of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant against all the defendants. On going through the defence of the defendants, it appears that they have simply denied the execution of relevant documents, as shown in the original application. However, they have failed to adduce their oral or documentary evidence as to non-execution of the concerned documents by them in support of their contention. For the first time in their written statement the defendants are contending that the applicant bank obtained their signatures forcefully on the documents and, that too, on blank papers, whereas the loan amounts seem to be sanctioned on 05/09/2019 i.e. prior to more than four years; of which they have not complained before higher authorities of the bank or before any other competent authority and, thus, said contention is not acceptable at all. It seems that the defendants are playing tactics to prolong the repayment of the loan amount to the applicant bank. Moreover, perusal of the documents shows that loan amount is sanctioned on 05/09/2019 whereas the original application is filed on 03/03/2022, which shows that it is filed well within the period of limitation. Thus,

¶30

(Madkar) (OA No. 160/2022) Page 5 of 7

¶31

the defence of the defendants is not considerable or acceptable at all.

¶32

Thus, in view of above, the averments in the original application have gone unrebutted. Hence, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the prayers made therein. Therefore, I hold that all the defendants are liable to pay to applicant the claim amount claimed in orig. application with future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic-19 long period and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present orig. application No. 160 of 2022 is allowed with costs, as under:

¶34

(A) Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 1,24,00,833/- (Rs. one crore twenty four lakhs eight hundred thirty three only) with future interest @ 8 (eight)% p.a., simple, from 05/01/2022 till the date of realization.

¶35

(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;

¶36

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

¶37

(Madkar) (OA No. 160/2022) Page 6 of 7

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶41

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

¶42

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date:13/12/2023 A urangabad

¶43

(Madkar) (OA No. 160/2022) Page 7 of 7

State Bank of India v. Salasar Alloys Industries and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Salasar Alloys Industries and Another

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

Mrs Jyoti Dagdusaheb Shinde versus Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Lohiya Developers versus Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Limied

M s Shrikrushna Agency Prop Chandu Ramdas Kulkarni versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Mangalabai Santosh Chaudhar

Bank of Baroda versus Tausif Agency

Union Bank of India versus Sunil