Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Mahavir Jain Enterprises

DRT21 Nov 2023OA/484/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by SBI for recovery of Rs. 78,14,954.70 with interest against a partnership firm and its partners/guarantors, ordering a recovery certificate and directing distribution of sale proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 78,14,954.70 with interest at 9.50% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; distribution of sale proceeds per Section 19(20-AB).

State Bank of India versus M/S Mahavir Jain… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 484/2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 05.03.2022 Date of Decision: 21.11.2023

¶5

SBI, having its Branch amongst other places at Kanak Mandi, Gaushala Bazaar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab – 146001.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Mahavir Jain Enterprises a Partnership Firm , at Saraffan Bazar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab – 146001 through its Partners Sh. Ashish Jain S/o Sh. Satish Kumar Jain, Sh. Akhil Jain S/o Sh. Satish Kumar Jain and Smt. Sarita Jain W/o Sh. Satish Kumar Jain.

¶9

Sh. Ashish Jain S/o Sh. Satish Kumar Jain, Partner of M/s Mahavir Jain Enterprises, R/o H.No.B-4/249, Mohalla Dabangran (also known as Jattan Mohalla), Near Dabba Building, Nai Abadi, Ward No.26, Hoshiarpur, Punjab – 146001.

¶10

Sh. Akhil Jain S/o Sh. Satish Kumar Jain, Partner of M/s Mahavir Jain Enterprises, R/o H.No.B-4/249, Mohalla Dabangran (also known as Jattan Mohalla), Near Dabba Building, Nai Abadi, Ward No.26, Hoshiarpur, Punjab – 146001.

¶11

Smt. Sarita Jain W/o Sh. Satish Kumar Jain, Partner of M/s Mahavir Jain Enterprises, R/o H.No.B-4/249, Mohalla Dabangran (also known as Jattan Mohalla), Near Dabba Building, Nai Abadi, Ward No.26, Hoshiarpur, Punjab – 146001.

¶12

Sh. Satish Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Gian Chand Jain, R/o H.No.B4/249, Mohalla Dabangran (also known as Jattan Mohalla), Near Dabba Building, Nai Abadi, Ward No.26, Hoshiarpur, Punjab – 146001.

¶13

……….Defendants

¶14

Advocates

¶15

Sh. Vivek Verma and Sh. Sanjay Sagar, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte

¶16

OA for the Recovery of Rs.78,14,954.70p with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 24.02.2022.

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

SBI, has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.78,14,954.70p with interest against M/s Mahavir Jain Enterprises and others (defendants).

¶20

The case of SBI is that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are its partners and guarantors. In the year 2006, Defendant No.1 firm through its Partners/then partners had availed the cash credit facility of Rs.30.00 Lacs for business purpose from it. To secure the loan, Defendant No.5 had mortgaged his immovable properties on 29.03.2006 by depositing two original title deeds (fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application). The mortgage was extended by defendant No.5 from time to time. At the request of defendants, the limit was enhanced from time to time with the extension of charge on the mortgage property. In the year 2013, the limit was enhanced from Rs.60.00 Lacs to Rs.75.00 Lacs. Thereafter, in the year 2015, bank had reduced the cash credit Limit looking to the declined sales of the firm and sanctioned the limit of Rs.60.00 Lacs. The said cash credit limit was also secured by hypothecation of stocks. At the request of defendants, the cash credit limit of Rs.60.00 Lacs was renewed on 30.03.2016. In the year 2018, defendants had submitted a fresh partnership deed dated 27.04.2017, vide which defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the only partners of the firm and defendant No.5 signed on the copy of the letter of arrangement dated 31.03.2018. The loan was chargeable to interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 23.02.2022, a sum of Rs.78,14,954.70p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶21

On 28.03.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not

¶22

¶23

put in appearance. Vide order dated 21.10.2022, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-29. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.60.00 Lacs and on 23.02.2022, a sum of Rs.78,14,954.70p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.78,14,954.70p (Rupees Seventy Eight Lacs Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Four and Paisa Seventy Only) with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 24.02.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged immovable properties fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application and hypothecated stocks as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 19.01.2024, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage properties and hypothecated stocks as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 21.11.2023 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Pankaj

State Bank of India v. M/S Mahavir Jain Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Mahavir Jain Enterprises

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

State Bank of India versus Marx Alexander

Sulaiman K T versus The Manjeri Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Dhairjya Ram Deka

Mrs G K Rani versus State Bank of India

Ms Habib Oil and Grains Processing versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Parampal Singh