Allowed

Canara Bank v. Liberty chemist

DRT24 Jul 2023OA/376/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Canara Bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 39,42,885.61 and interest against a borrower and three guarantors of a partnership firm on an ex-parte basis following failure to appear.

What did the court decide?

Direct defendants to pay Rs. 39,42,885.61 plus interest at 12.10% p.a. within 60 days; recover from sale of assets if unpaid; issue Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Liberty chemist — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Registered on : 10/08/2022 Decided on : 24/07/2023

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 376 of 2022

¶3

Canara Bank, Nationalized Bank, a body corporate constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head office at 112, J C Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State and having one of its branch offices at Plot No: 342, TPS III, 16^th Road, Bandra (w), Mumbai 400 050] (erstwhile Syndicate Bank which got amalgamated to Canara Bank on the basis Amalgamation Scheme dated 04.03.2020) through Derbin Udayabhanu the of the Applicant Bank who is authorized to sign this Application.

¶4

... APPLICANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

M/s. Liberty Chemist, A Partnership Firm having its office at Shop No: A – 1, Ground Floor, Rizvi House Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Plot No: 34, 35 – A, 36 & 36 (A), TPS – II, Hill Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400 050

¶7

Mr. Kalpesh Jayantilal Dudhara 3. Mr. Jiten Jayantilal Dhudhara

¶8

Mr. Yash Kalpesh Dudhara

¶9

All the above being Partners of Defendant No.1 and having address at:-

¶10

Shop No: A – 1, Ground Floor, Rizvi House Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Plot No: 34, 35 – A, 36 & 36 (A), TPS – II, Hill Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai -400 050

¶11

And also at:Flat No: 2002, Veena Sky Heights, Sai Baba Extension Road, Next to Pawar Public School, Sai Baba Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Adv. Sujata D. Counsel for the Defendant : Ex –parte

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

The Original Application has been filed by the Applicant against the Defendants for recovery of Rs.39,42,885.61/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Five and Paise Sixty One only) together with interest thereon @ 12.10% p.a. from the date of filing of the present OA till its realization.

¶16

Facts as succinctly set out in the OA are that the Defendant No.1 is a Borrower and Defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 are the Partners of Defendant No.1 firm and also stood as Guarantors in their personal capacity to the said facility availed by Defendant No.1.

¶17

It is stated that on 04.07.2017, at the request of the Defendants, the Applicant sanctioned Secured Overdraft Facility of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest @10.10% p.a. compounded monthly for purpose of working capital for business. The said facility was renewed by the Defendants on 30.08.2019.

¶18

In consideration of sanction the said loan, the Defendants have signed, executed and delivered in favour of the Applicant the following security documents:-

¶19

a. Application for Credit Facilities dated 17/06/2017.

¶20

b. Sanction Letter dated 04/07/2017.

¶21

c. Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 29/07/2017.

¶22

d. Guarantee Agreement dated 30/08/2019 duly executed by the Defendant No. 2.

¶23

e. Guarantee Agreement dated 30/08/2019 duly executed by the Defendant No. 3.

¶24

f. Guarantee Agreement dated 30/08/2019 duly executed by the Defendant No. 4.

¶25

g. Renewal Letter dated 30/08/2019.

¶26

It is also stated that the after availing the loan facility, the Defendants failed and neglected to make the payment of the outstanding dues to the Applicant Bank. Thus, the account was declared as NPA on 2910.2019. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank issued Legal Notice dated 22.01.2020 called upon the Defendants

¶27

to pay the outstanding dues but they failed to pay the dues. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶28

Notices were issued to the Defendants. Despite service, none appeared for the Defendants nor any WS has been filed, thus, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09/06/2023.

¶29

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed through their Manager Mr. Shivraj R. Madavi.

¶30

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

¶31

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 4 are joint and several.

¶32

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application by the Applicant Bank deserves to be allowed against the Defendant No.1 to 4.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

a. I allow this OA and direct the Defendant No.1 to 4 to pay to the Applicant Bank, within a period of 60 days, sum of Rs.39,42,885.61/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Sixty One only) together with interest thereon @ 12.10% p.a. from the date of filing of the present OA till its realization

¶35

b. Failing which the amount shall be recovered from the sale of personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendants.

¶36

c. Defendant No.1 to 4 shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶37

d. Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶38

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

¶39

File be consigned to record.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 24/07/2023 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.

Canara Bank v. Liberty chemist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Liberty chemist

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Kotian Sharad Krishna

Man Infraproject Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda (Dena Bank)

Assets Reconstruction Company India Limited versus the Official Liquidator

Idbi Bank versus Ranjit

geomanage consultancy services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Co.

Idbi Bank versus Girish Mohan Nerurkar