Allowed

Rbl Bank Limited v. Tanmay Trading Company

DRT14 Dec 2023OA/84/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A receipted banking debt recovery application was adjudicated where the applicants bank sought recovery of outstanding loan dues against three respondents for failure to repay a secured loan. The tribunal allowed the application, holding that the bank was entitled to the claimed amount with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 2,31,89,322/- with 8% p.a. simple interest; realization through mortgaged properties and defendants person/property; issue of recovery certificate.

Rbl Bank Limited versus Tanmay Trading Company — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

Presented on: 03/11/2021 Registered on: 08/04/2022 Decided on: 14/12/2023 Duration: Y M Ds 2 - 1 - 11

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL at Aurangabad.

¶4

Original Application No. 84 of 2022

¶5

RBL Bank Ltd. (erstwhile the Ratnakar Bank Ltd. (PAN No. AABCT3335M, 1^st lane, Shahupuri, Kolhapur – 416001, Maharashtra State, India and one of its Branch at Ground Floor, N-3, Plot No. 303, CIDCO, Jalna road, Aurangabad, Maharashtra 431001 and One World Centre, Tower 2B, 20^th Floor, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 and acting through its Power of Attorney Holder Shri Sachin Surajmal Somani, having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Tanmay Trading Company, a sole proprietorship, represented by its sole Proprietor Mr Vijay Pralhad Bhandarge, Mahada Colony, Shree Krishna Nagar, Jalna - 431203

¶9

Mr Atul Omprakash Mantri, 26, 27, 28 Mahalaxmi Nagar, Mantha Chaupali, Jalna 431203 PAN ABEPM0285E,

¶10

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 84/2022) Page 1 of 6

¶11

also at:

¶12

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, Jalna - 431203

¶13

Geeta Refinery Private Limited Gat No. 175, Rammurti village, Mantha Road, Jalna – 431203 Also at : 31 New Gur Market, Jalna – 431203 PAN AABCG1971C … Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES :

¶15

For Applicant : Mr. S.R. Vakil - Advocate For Defendant No.1: Mr V.R. Patil, Adv. For Defendants No. 2 & 3: Mr Dhiraj Jethliya, Adv.

¶16

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer .

¶17

Pronounced on : 14^th December 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The applicant-bank filed the present original application against defendants No.1 to 3 for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,31,89,322/- (Rs. two crores thirty one lakhs eighty nine thousand three hundred twenty two only) towards outstanding of

¶20

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 84/2022) Page 2 of 6

¶21

business loan amount, with future interest @10.05% p.a., from 01/09/2021 till the date of realization and, in default, for sale of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in orig. application. Applicant bank pleads that defendants obtained loan of Rs. eight crores on 16/03/2016 on execution of relevant documents in favour of applicant to secure the repayment of loan amount. Thereafter defendants got enhanced loan amount of Rs. 8.00 crores to Rs. 10.00 crores from the applicant bank on 10/03/2017. However, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount as agreed, which resulted into classifying the loan account as NPA on 30/11/2020 and issuing demand notice on 17/08/2021. It is pleaded that in the meantime, defendants executed letter of acknowledgment of debt and balance confirmation on 31/08/2018 and thereby acknowledged the amount due against them.

¶22

Though defendants No.1 to 3 appeared in the matter, they failed to file written statement and, therefore, the application proceeded without written statement against them, vide order

¶23

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 84/2022) Page 3 of 6

¶24

dated 21/04/2023.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. 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 ?

¶26

The applicant-bank filed evidence on affidavit (Exh. 4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 26 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 26 on behalf of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicantbank against the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the original application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant-bank is entitled for the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of the documents shows that the application is filed within limitation. Hence I hold that the defendants are liable to pay to applicantbank the claim amount claimed in the orig. application, with future reasonable interest considering meantime long period of

¶27

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 84/2022) Page 4 of 6

¶28

Covid-Pandeic-19 and costs.

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No. 84 of

¶30

2022 is allowed with costs, as under:

¶31

(A) Defendants No.1 to 3 are liable to pay sum of Rs.

¶32

2,31,89,322/- (Rs. two crores thirty one lakhs eighty nine thousand three hundred twenty two only) with future interest @ 8 (eight) % p.a., simple, from the date of application till the date of realization.

¶33

(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;

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(E) The applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks

¶37

from the date of receipt of order.

¶38

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 84/2022) Page 5 of 6

¶39

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶40

(G) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶41

Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶42

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date:14/12/2023 A urangabad

¶43

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 84/2022) Page 6 of 6

Rbl Bank Limited v. Tanmay Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rbl Bank Limited v. Tanmay Trading Company

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

Canara Bank versus Mangalabai Santosh Chaudhar

State Bank of India versus Salasar Alloys Industries and Another

Bank of Baroda versus Tausif Agency

Union Bank of India versus M/s Annapurna Pulses

State Bank of India versus Rajput Pyro Industries

State Bank of India versus Vishwasrao