Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Suresh Traders

DRT18 Dec 2023OA/529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of dues from M/s Suresh Traders and Mrs. Kajalkhairajani. The court held in favor of the bank due to non-appearance of defendants.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay the OA amount with future interest and costs, allowing realization of sale proceeds and further recovery if demands remain unpaid.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Suresh Traders — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL . I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 18th day December,2023

¶3

Present: Sri IMTIAZ ALI

Presiding Officer

OA No.529/2O22

BETWEEN:

BANK OF BARODA

Inter alia one of its Branch Office at:

¶9

Infantry Road Branch No.23/24,Infantry Road BENGALURU - 560 OO1 Represented by its Chief Manager Sri Subramanyam K.V.

¶10

.. APPLICANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/s Suresh Traders

¶13

Represented by its Proprietor Sri Suresh Ramchandkhairajani Having its place of business at No.253, Varasiddhi Arcade, 2nd Floor Narayana Pillai Street,Shivaji Nagar BENGALURU - 560 O41

¶14

2. Mrs.Kajalkhairajani

¶15

Sl.No.2 and 3 are R/at No.1923, Embassy Habitat, Palace Road BENGALURU - 560 OO1

¶16

Also at:

¶17

No.301, Sai Arcade Srikanteshwara Nagar Mahalakshmi Layout BENGALURU - 560 086

¶18

..DEFENDANTS

¶19

Co_unsels on record/aooeared for: Applicant : Sri Prakash Hegde K. Defendants i Ex-parte

OA No.529/2022

FINAL ORDER

The^present OA^{havebeen filed by the Applicant Bank} under Section¹⁹ of^{theRecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy} Act, 1993, seeking^{recovery ofmoney of} Ri,LO,27,90,442.74^{(Rupees Ten Crore twenty seven} lakhs ninety thousand^{four hundred forty-two and} paise seventy-four only)^{together with costs,interest,etc'}

¶24

The case of the^{Applicant Bank is that, the Defendant} No.1 being the^{Proprietorship concern represented by its sole} Proprietor - Mr.^{SureshRamchandkhairajani and Defendant} No.2 being the^{Guarantorhad approached the Applicant Bank} for various financial^{facilities. Accordingly,the Applicant Bank} has considered the^{request of the Defendants and sanctioned} the 1) Cash^{Credit in a sum of Rs.5,15,00,000/-under Loan} Account No.109306341000002^{now BOB migratedAccount} No.737905OOOOOO18^{along with interest at the rate of} fl.7Oo/o^per annum,^{2)[4ortgageLoan in asum of} Rs.2,4O,OO,OOO/- under^{VB AccountNo.109308391000009} and BOB No.737906000000243^{along with interestat the} rcle of 12,25o/o^{per annum, and at the request of the} Defendants the Applicant^{on 07.12.2018 had reviewed Cash}

¶25

¶26

OA No.32912012

¶27

Credit Loan and it was enhanced from Rs.5,15,OO,OOO/- to Rs.6,00,00,000/-.

¶28

It is submitted that further as per the request of the Defendants the Applicant on 30.11.2019 had reviewed cum re-structured said facilities as under:

¶29

a)Term Loan (Review with Restructure) for purchase of Site including Land and Building from existing Rs.24O.O Lakhs to Restructured Limit of Rs.193.57 lakhs inclusive Rs.35.05 under Old Account No.109308391000009 migrated new Account No.737906000000243 with interest at the rate of 12.25o/o Per annum

¶30

b)Cash Credit for working capital requirements from existing Rs.600.00 lakhs to restructured limit of 23O.OO inclusive of Rs.370.00 under old Account No.109306211000019 new migrated Account No.737905000000018 with interest @ 8.3olo per annum

¶31

c)WCTL(Fresh Carved out from TL Restructure to Fund Principal overdue in existing Term Loan has restructured Rs.6.37 lakhs plus + 6.37 lakhs under Old Account No,10930037000001 new migrated Account No.737906000000005

¶32

d)FITL (Fresh Carved out of TL Restructure to Fund

¶33

¶34

OA No-529 /2022

¶35

Interest overdue in existinq Term Loan and Cash Credit Limit (Rs.26.59+6.24 lakhs) restructured at Rs.39.77 lakhs plus Rs.39.77 Iakhs under Old Account No.109300017000001 new migrated Account No.739906000000001 with interest at the rate 8.35^o/o per annum

¶36

e)WCDL(Working Capital Demand Loan) carved out from CC Limit for conversion of part of existing cash credit limit of Rs.370.00 lakhs plus Rs.370.00 under Old Account No.1093000017000002 new migrated Account No.737906000000002 along with interest at the rate of 8,35olo Per annum.

¶37

Further on the request of the Defendants, on 24.17.2020 the Applicant Bank had sanctioned a Fresh Limit of WCTL proposal(Standalone) under BGECLS to a tune of Rs.1,60,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum under Account No.73790600000509. In order to secure the loans, the Defendants have executed documents, viz., Loan Agreement-cum-Hypothecation Deeds, Articles of Agreement, Letters of Guarantees, MemoTandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, Demand Promissory Notes, Letter of Repayment, Undertaking, Permission Letter, Authorization Letter, General Form of Guarantees, Letters of Continuing

¶38

¶39

OA No.529/2022

¶40

Securities, Composite Hypothecation Agreements, Declarations cum Undertakings cum Authority, power of Attorney, Declaration, Continuing Memorandum of Entry, Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement, and An undertaking to create extension mortgage in favour of the Bank etc.,

¶41

Further, the Defendants have agreed to repay the above loans with variable rate of interests, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and keep the accounts regular by paying installments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

¶42

The Defendants had fully availed the loan facilities and subsequently failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanction and committed breach by defaulting in repayment of regular installments. Further, the Defendants had not repaid the outstanding due amount in spite of repeated requests and reminders made by the Applicant Bank and had violated the terms and conditions of the sanction letter and loan documents. When the Defendants had failed to regularize the account and Applicant

¶43

¶44

OA No.529/2022

¶45

Bank has classified^{the loan accountas NPA on 31'03 2021'} Thereafter, the^{Applicant Bank had got issued Legal Notice} dated 13.09.2021^{and recalledthe entire outstanding} amounts in view of^{the default by the Defendants'} Subsequently,^{Defendantsfailed to repay the admitted} outstanding due^{amounts and hence the recovery processis} initiated to recover^{the dues.}

¶46

In the light of these^{factors, it is contendedby the} Applicant Bank that^{Defendantsare liableto pay a total sum} of Rs.10,27,90,442.74^{(RupeesTen Crore twentyseven} lakhs ninety^{thousandfour hundredforty-twoand paise} seventy-four onlY ).

¶47

After filing this OA.,^{summonsweresent to the} Defendants through^{RPAD. The summonssent tothe} Defendants No.1^{and 2 remained unserved and returnedwith} postal remarks "Unclaimed/No^{Suchperson/Left"'} Thereafter, the Applicant^{Bank has published the summons} to the Defendants^{No.1 and 2 on 23.05.2023 in English and} vernacular languages^{in Localnewspapets,viz., - "TheNew} Indian Express" and "Kannada^{Prabha ".When the} Defendants were^{called out, they remained absentand hence}

¶48

¶49

OANo.52912022

¶50

they were placed ex parte.

¶51

To prove the case of the Appricant Bank, The chief Manager-Sri Durgesh chandra Roy, has filed his affidavit by way of evidence the same was considered as evidence of AW.1 and marked at Ex.A1 and list of document came to be marked at Ex.A2 and 51 documents came to be marked at Ex.A3 to A53.

¶52

No evidence on behalf of the Defendants

¶53

Arguments of Learned counser for the praintiff/ Applicant Bank heard and perused the records of the case.

¶54

Following points arise for my consideration:

¶55

1. Whether Plaintiff / Applicant Bank proves its case as contended in the plaint / application?_

¶56

1. What Order?

¶57

For the foilowing reasons, I answer the abovereferred points in the following manner:

¶58

REASONS

¶59

L2. chief Manager of the Appricant Bank came to be examined as AW.1. His affidavit by way of evidence

¶60

¶61

OA No.529 12022

¶62

reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above-referred Ex.A3 to A53 which clearly establish the case of the Applicant Bank to allow the present OA. Added to this, the Defendants have remained absent and hence they were placed ex parte. Therefore, it is to be construed that Defendants have admitted the entire case pleaded by the Applicant Bank in the present OA.

¶63

Therefore, for these reasons, present OA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the Applicant Bank.

¶64

ORDER

¶65

Present OA stands allowed as prayed for with interest and costs.

¶66

The Defendants No.1 and 2 shall pay the OA amount with future interest and costs minus Rs.3,01,20,000/- which was adjusted to the Loan Account No.73790500000018 and a sum of k.7,60,88,424.20 was recovered on 05.12.2020 and adjusted to Loan Account No.73790600000002 through pubic Auction and issued Sale Certificate on 30.05.2023 towards sale of the schedule property as per Memo Dated 06.10.2023 filed by the counsel for the Applicant Bank and also as averred

¶67

¶68

OA No.529 /2022

¶69

in the evidence of affidavit of AW1, the Chief Manager of the

¶70

Applicant Bank.

¶71

Further, the defendants No.1 and 2 shall pay the OA amount with future interest and costs minus Rs.1,14,750/being the amount already recovered by the Applicant Bank by selling of the movable property in respect of the loan of the Defendants and the same is kept in Fixed Deposit with the Bank as per Memo Dated 13.10.2023 filed by the counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶72

In the event of failure of the Defendants to pay the sa id OA amount, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell the Schedule properties in accordance with law as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA.

¶73

In spite of sale of the schedule properties, if the OA amount is not fully realised, then the Applicant Bank is at liberty to proceed against the persons and other properties of the Defendants in accordance with law

¶74

Applicant Bank shall file latest Memo of Calculation of OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by Defendants duly taking into account the amount/s, if any,

oA No.529/2022

paid by the Defendants and/or amount realised by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening^{period after filing the OA,} to enable the office to^{prepareRecoveryCertificatefor the} amount to be^paid by the Defendants to the^{Applicant Bank.}

¶79

Office is directed to issue Recovery Certificate^{as sought} by the Applicant Bank in the OA and do the^needfulas required under the law forthwith.

¶80

The Office is directed to issue, as far as^{possible, free} copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶81

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the lBth day December, 2023)

¶82

(IMTIAI ALI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶83

ANNEXURES

¶84

witness Examined for the Apolicant Bank: AW-1 : Sri Durgesh Chandra Roy The Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank List of Documents Exhibited for the Aoolicant Bank: Ex.A- 1 : Affidavit of AW- 1 Ex.A-2 : List of Documents Ex.A-3 to A-53 : 51 documents witness Examined for the Defendants: - Nit -

¶85

7^.t? t0'l' ALr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, Bengaluru

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Suresh Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Suresh Traders

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sonam Industries

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Geeta Stationary

Hdfc Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr. Ghanshyam Nayak

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Urmila Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Sun Rise International Group