Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Tausif Agency

DRT13 Dec 2023OA/164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for the recovery of Rs. 63.43 lakhs outstanding as a loan against three respondents. The Tribunal held the loan valid, unrebutted by respondents appearing ex parte, and directed payment of principal with interest. It also granted permission to enforce against mortgage and respondent properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 63,43,064/- with future interest @ 8% p.a.; applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and unauthorized properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Tausif Agency — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 04/02/2022 Registered on: 20/06/2022 Decided on: 13/12/2023 Duration: Y M Ds 1 – 10 - 07

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL at Aurangabad.

¶3

Original Application No. 164 of 2022

¶4

Bank of Baroda,

¶5

a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act v, 1970 having its Local Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda and one of its Branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch and acting through its Power of Attorney Holder and one of Chief Manager Shri Vishal Raj Gupta, age 32 years occup. service as Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Plot No. 8, Town Centre, Connaught Place, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Tausif Agency, Proprietor Mr Rashid Mohamad Sayyad, age 48 years occup. business,

¶9

R/o Laxminarayan Nagar, Gondhavani Road, Ward No.1, Shrirampur Taluka Shrirampur Dist. Ahmednagar 431 709 PAN No. AVEPS0210R Aadhar No. 7567 4217 6007 Mb. No. 9850213575

¶10

(Madkar) (OA No. 164/2022) Page 1 of 7

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. Tausif Agency, Proprietor Mr Rashid Mohamad Sayyad, Age 48 years occupation business R/o Plot No. 30, Municipal House No. 485/6, Survey No. 72(P), CTS No. 2182 A/1(P), Laxminarayan Nagar, Gondhavani road, Ward No.1, Shrirampur Taluka Shrirampur Dist. Ahmednagar 431 709 PAN No. AVEPS0210R Aadhar No. 7567 4217 6007 Mb. No. 9850213575

¶13

Mr Mohammad Husen Sayyad, age 68 years occupation business R/o Laxminarayan Nagar Gondhavani road, Ward No.1, Shrirampur Taluka Shrirampur Dist. Ahmednagar 431 709 PAN No. AEWPS4112B Aadhar No. 2666 7592 9217

¶14

AND

¶15

Mr Mohammad Husen Sayyad, age 68 years occupation business R/o Plot No. 30, Municipal House No. 485/6, Sur. No. 72(P), CTS No. 2182 A/1(P), R/o Laxminarayan Nagar, Gondhavani road, Ward No.1, Shrirampur Tal. Shrirampur Dist. Ahmednagar 431 709 PAN No. AEWPS4112B Aadhar No. 2666 7592 9217

¶16

Mr Manoj Sopan Warke, age 45 years occup. business R/o Laxminarayan Nagar, Gondhavani road, Ward No.1, Shrirampur Tal. Shrirampur Dist. Ahmednagar 431 709 Aadhar No. 3866 2242 2561 … Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES :

¶18

For Applicant : Mrs. R.R. Yewale - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte

¶19

(Madkar) (OA No. 164/2022) Page 2 of 7

¶20

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer .

¶21

Pronounced on : 13^th December 2023

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Applicant filed present orig. application against Defts. No.1 to 3 for recovery of sum of Rs. 63,43,064/- (Rs. sixty three lakhs forty three thousand sixty four only) towards outstanding of loan amount availed by them for their business purpose, with future interest @11.10% p.a., with monthly rests, from 20/12/2021 till date of realization and, in default, for sale of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in orig. application. It is pleaded that initially, defendants obtained cash credit loan of Rs. 2.00 lakhs from applicant-bank for their agency of wholesale supply of biscuits, Papad Agarbatti, etc. under the name and style M/s. Tausif Aency. Defts. No.2 & 3 stood as guarantors for said loan amount. Said cash credit loan got enhanced by defendants

¶24

time and again i.e. on 25/10/2005 upto Rs.4.00 lakhs, thereafter to

¶25

(Madkar) (OA No. 164/2022) Page 3 of 7

¶26

Rs. 7.00 lakhs on 30/04/2009, thereafter to Rs. 15.00 lakhs on

¶27

28/10/2010, thereafter to Rs. 25.00 lakhs on 01/07/2013, thereafter to Rs. 45.00 lakhs on 08/02/2017. Applicant also sanctioned defendants additional term loan of Rs. 4.50 lakhs on 05/12/2019. Defendants also obtained additional working capital term loan facility of Rs. 9.00 lakhs on 18/09/2020. Lastly, the defendants again got extended their earlier term loan of Rs. 4.50 lakhs to Rs. 7.00 lakhs on 31/12/2020. The applicant-bank sanctioned all aforesaid loan amounts subject to execution of relevant documents and acceptance of terms and conditions in favour of applicant to secure the loan amount. However, the defendants failed to follow the repayment programme, which resulted into classifying the loan accounts as NPA on 30/04/2021 and issuing legal demand notice on 15/11/2021. Even though the defendants failed to repay the loan amount due against them. It is further pleaded that the some meagre amounts deposited by the defendants have been adjusted in the loan accounts, as shown in

¶28

(Madkar) (OA No. 164/2022) Page 4 of 7

¶29

ledger extracts.

¶30

Though the defendants served with summons of the

¶31

application by hand, vide service affidavit Exh. 7, failed to appear in the matter and, therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against

¶32

them.

¶33

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶34

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 ?

¶35

The applicant-bank filed evidence on affidavit (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith total 72 documents (including one photocopy of a document at Ser.No. 18), which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 17 and A.W. 19 to A.W. 72) 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

¶36

unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant-bank

¶37

(Madkar) (OA No. 164/2022) Page 5 of 7

¶38

is entitled for the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of

¶39

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

¶40

In the result, the present orig. application No. 164 of 2022 is allowed with costs, as under:

¶41

(A) Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 63,43,064/- (Rs. sixty three lakhs forty three thousand sixty four only) with future interest @ 8 (eight) % p.a., simple, from 20/12/2021 till the date of realization.

¶42

(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;

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(Madkar) (OA No. 164/2022) Page 6 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

(Madkar) (OA No. 164/2022) Page 7 of 7

Bank of Baroda v. Tausif Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Tausif Agency

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

State Bank of India versus Salasar Alloys Industries and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sunil