Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S Khatu Shyamji Traders Proprietor- Shr Pankaj Kumar Bajoria S/O Shri Sawarmal Bajoria

DRT25 Apr 2023OA/259/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicants bank originating application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of dues. It ordered payment of Rs. 2.53 crore with interest, allowed sale of mortgaged and personal properties, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 2,52,99,963.00 with interest at 10.25% p.a., sale of properties for recovery, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Indian Bank versus M/S Khatu Shyamji Traders Proprietor- Shr… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

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

¶4

Originol Applicotion No.^- 259122

¶5

lndian Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Opp. Sai Mangtam, Bitaspur (C.G.)

¶6

..... Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) M/s Khatu Shyamji Trades, Proprietor-Shri Pankaj Kumar Bajoria, S/o Shri Sawarmal Bajoria, Business at: 5hop No. AG-4, Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bitaspur (C.G.); Residence of: Ftat No.-403 Amba Tower Phase-2, Vidya Nagar, Bitaspur (C.G.)

¶9

Smt. Pushpa Bajoria, W/o Shri Pankaj Kumar Bajoria, Residence of: Flat No.-403 Amba Tower Phase-2. Vidya Nagar, Bitaspur (C.G.) Defendants

¶10

Counset for the Appticant : Shri P. Shankaran Nair, Advocate

¶11

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

(Dated : 25th April, 2023)

¶14

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 08102122 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,52,99,963.00 (Rupees Two Crore, Fifty Two Lac, Ninety Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty Three onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1, the Appticant Bank (then Attahabad Bank) sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 1.25 Crore on 20112114 which was renewed on December 2015. ln consideration of the sanction of credit limit, the Defendant No.-1 as borrower and Defendant No.-2 as guarantor in addition to execution of loan and^joint guarantee documents have atso created equitabte mortgage over the immovabte properties, i.e.,

¶16

¶17

oA259t22

¶18

i) Land and buitding constructed thereon situated at MouzaTorwa, Kh No.-711, PH No.-22l34, area 880 sq.ft., Ward No.-34, Bhagat Singh Nagar, RNM-Bitaspur, Btock, Tehsit & District-Bilaspur (C.G.); belonging to Defendant No.-1;

¶19

ii) Land and buitding constructed thereon situated at MouzaDhuma, area 4796 sq.ft. & constructed area Ground and first Ftoor-1960 sq.ft. each, Kh No.-650, PH No.-24132, area 880 sq.ft., Ward No.-34, Bhagat Singh Nagar, RNM-Bilaspur, Tehsit & District-Bitaspur (C.G.); betonging to Defendant No.-2.

¶20

The Defendant No.-1 avaited the credit facitity but account was continuousty overdrawn. The account became irregular and the Defendants faited to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Demand Notice lastty on 11111/20 and initiation of action under the Securitisation Act by the Applicant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-21 which were proved by Shri Priyadarshan Mishra, Chief Manager,

¶21

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13101 123. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severalty liable to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant.Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @10.25%^p.a. with monthly rests. However, I feel it fair and reasonable to grant interest @10.25% p.a. simpte pendentelite and future ti[[ reatization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are [iable to be sotd for recovery of amount due along with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶22

The Originat Apptication is atlowed and it is ordered as under.

¶23

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severally Rs. 2,52,99,963.00 (Rupees Two Crore, Fifty Two Lac, Ninety Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty Three onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @10.25% per annum simpte from the date of fiting of the 0A, i.e., 08102122, with costs titt its realization.

¶24

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to setl the mortgaged as wett as persona[ properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from

¶25

¶26

oA259122

¶27

depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way deating with their properties/ assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this Day of 25th Aprit, 2023.

¶30

h' (Ram was Patel) Presidine Officer

¶31

p>9

Indian Bank v. M/S Khatu Shyamji Traders Proprietor- Shr Pankaj Kumar Bajoria S/O Shri Sawarmal Bajoria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S Khatu Shyamji Traders Proprietor- Shr Pankaj Kumar Bajoria S/O Shri Sawarmal Bajoria

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 Jaswant Rao Gurungalkar

Hdfc Bank versus Rajasthan Engineering Company

State Bank of India versus Sandeep Awasthi

Smt Susma Tiwari versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

A G Garments versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

A G Garments versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.