Dismissed

M S Shivam Enterprises v. Punjab National Bank

DRT19 Jun 2023SA/310/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application filed by borrowers and a guarantor against Punjab National Bank. The tribunal held that the applicants were ready to deposit the dues but failed to do so, had no meritorious ground to challenge the notices, and used the plea of lost title deeds to delay proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed with no cost.

M S Shivam Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank — Landlord and Tenant | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA/310/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.- 310/2022

¶5

1, M/S SHIVAM ENTERPRISES

¶6

through Proprietor Mr. Shekhar Kumar S/o Vijay Kant Jha,

¶7

Address – 304, Apeksha Apartment, Sec-11, Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶8

2. MR. RAVINDRA KUMAR JHA S/o Ganesh Chandra Jha, Address – House No. 3A-50, Sector – 7, Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶9

………Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

¶12

Circle Sastra Centre, 3^rd Floor, LIC Building, Sub City Centre, Reti Stand, Udaipur through Chief Manager

¶13

2. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Branch – Kala Ji Goraji Udaipur through Branch Manager

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

Counsel –

¶16

Sh. Shrawan Kumar, Counsel for Applicants

¶17

Sh. Raj Kumar , Ld. counsel for Respondent F.I.

¶18

(Final Order)

¶19

(19.06.2023)

¶20

1. This Securitization Application was filed by SA Applicants on 26.05.2022

¶21

1. Rep[ly to SA was filed on 30.06.2022.

¶22

¶23

SA/310/2022

¶24

1. Rejoinder to reply was filed on 01.11.2022.

¶25

1. On 05.04.2023, Applicant moved an IA No. 606/2023 with a prayer to take on record documents filed, along with this IA.

¶26

1. Reply to this IA was filed by the Bank on 10.05.2023.

¶27

1. As per facts of the case SA Applicant No. 1 is borrower and Applicant No. 2 is the guarantor to credit facility of Rs. 10,00,000/- availed by Applicants. It is also admitted that both the Applicants purchased Flat No. 304 A and 304 B at 3^rd Floor, Apeksha Complex, Hiran Magri, Sector-11, Udaipur.

¶28

1. Default on account of impact of COVID-19 is admitted in para 5.4 of the SA.

¶29

1. In para 5.5, it is admitted that the account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2021 and on 12.09.2021, Respondent FI, issued a Demand Notice. In para 5.7, details of amount of Rs. 2,96,600/during 03.01.2022 to 24.05.2022 is admitted and it is claimed that on account of deposit of abovesaid amount, outstanding came to Rs. 9,98,682/- which is below Rs. 10,00,000/-.

¶30

1. In para 5.8, the Applicant, is willing to deposit overall due amount but some time is required for that.

¶31

1. In para 5.13, it is claimed that other financial institutions are ready to take over the loan account but Applicants got knowledge that the Respondent Bank has lost some original documents of secured assets (as detailed in para 5.1 of the SA), and this fact is clear from the search report of title deeds given by the advocate of the Respondent Bank, which was prepared at the time of disbursement of loan in the year 2017.

¶32

1. In para 5.14 to 5.16 of the SA, legality of order passed by District Magistrate Order dt. 25.04.2022, is challenged as no opportunity of being heard was provided to SA Applicants.

¶33

1. Along with SA, Demand Notice dt. 22.09.2021 (Annexure-A/1) Possession Notice dt. 17.01.2022 (Annexure-A/2), Statement of Account at Annexure-

¶34

¶35

SA/310/2022

¶36

A/3), Certified Copy of application and Order U/s 14 are filed at Annexure-A/4 and copy of letter dt. 02.05.2022, is filed at Annexure-A/5.

¶37

1. Based on these grounds Ld. counsel for the Applicant prayed to quash and set aside all the notices, notices issued by the Respondent Bank.

¶38

1. Ld. counsel for the Respondent Bank strongly objected the prayer and he argued that the account was declared NPA as per given details of RBI, and as the Applicant filed to maintain primary security i.e. Stock intact, there was no business transations as the Applicants failed to provide sufficient documents for renewal and to prove that the activity of business are going on, so actions, initiated by them are as per law.

¶39

1. In reply to IA No. 606/2023 dt. 05.04.2023 it is submitted that all the title documents of mortgaged property are in safe custody, no document is lost and Applicant failed to inform the source of information, who informed that the property papers/title documents are lost.

¶40

1. Based on above said grounds, it was prayed that the SA, is required to be dismissed.

¶41

1. Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶42

1. Considering para 5.8 of the SA, it seems that the SA Applicant is ready to deposit overall due amount, but infact since filing of this SA and till final arguments, no such offer was given by SA Applicants, which can show that exactly, in how much time the Applicant can deposit the due amount.

¶43

1. SA Applicant failed to file on record complete statement of account and from Statement of Account so file on record, it is clear that the SA Applicant failed to deposit any amount during the period from 31.05.2021 to 31.12.2021 and amount as outstanding was more than Rs. 12,50,000/-.

¶44

1. As per Demand Notice dt. 22.09.2021 (A/1) amount due as on 31.08.2021 was Rs. 12,01,373/- and if Applicant deposited any amount after issuance of Demand Notice, it never gives an opportunity to claim

¶45

¶46

SA/310/2022

¶47

that the account is regular because again on or after 24.05.2022, no amount was deposited and on 26.05.2022, this SA was filed.

¶48

1. The SA Applicant failed to point out any illegality in Demand Notice as well as in Possession Notice.

¶49

1. The plea that title deeds are lost is also a plea which was taken by SA Applicant in order to delay the proceedings of this SA and so IA No. 606/2023 is also devoid of any merit and Applicants are required to be careful in future to not to, file such applications.

¶50

1. Accordingly, the SA filed by Applicants is devoid of any merit and so is dismissed with no cost.

¶51

1. Copy of the order be given free to the parties concerned. File be placed before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record.

¶52

(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

M S Shivam Enterprises v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Shivam Enterprises v. Punjab National Bank

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

Hdfc Bank versus Mr Dhima Ram

Yes Bank versus B R Godara Construction Company

Hdfc Bank versus Hanuman Shay

Indusind Bank Limited versus M/S Brijraj Construction

State Bank of India versus Mrs Hemlata Pareek

Icici Bank Limited versus Mahadev Earthmovers Company