Allowed

State Bank of India v. Macrocosm Industries Pvt. Ltd.

DRT28 Jul 2023TA/75/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's transfer original application for recovery of outstanding dues. The court accepted the bank's document-based evidence as uncontradicted, determined the liability of borrowers and guarantors to be joint and several, and directed payment of the balance amount after auction realization.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay outstanding balance of Rs.25,41,55,661/- with interest, directed recovery from assets, and ordered immediate issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Macrocosm Industries Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

TOA 75 of 2023

¶2

Registered on:- 23/07/2014 Decided on:-28/07/2023

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI

¶4

TRANSFER ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 75 of 2023

¶5

STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶6

A Banking company constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having its Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 and one of its branches named Stressed Asset Management Branch at “The Arcade”, 2^nd Floor, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400005, through its Chief Manager Mr. Sanjay T. Gawhale.

¶7

…Applicant Bank

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. MACROCOSM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. A Company incorporated and registered under Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at 401, 4^th Floor, Wellington Business Park I, Andheri Kurla Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400059 and another officer at 804, 8^th Floor, Maker V Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021.

¶10

2. MR. HRISHIKESH SHAH,

¶11

Adult, Indian Inhabitant residing at Anjali, 2^nd Floor, Plot no. 18, Gulmohar Road, JVPD, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049

¶12

TOA 75 of 2023

¶13

3. MR. JAYKISHAN SHAH Adult, Indian Inhabitant residing at Anjali, 2^nd Floor, Plot no. 18, Gulmohar Road, JVPD, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant : Advocate P. Kumar N i/b. Prakash P. & Co.

¶16

Counsel for the Defendants : None

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the Applicant Bank against the Defendants before the Ld. DRT-II, Mumbai, for recovery of Rs.32,78,85,586/- (Rupees Thirty Two Crore Seventy Eight Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Six Only) together with further interest at the rate of 12.7% per annum (6.50%per annum above base rate) with monthly rests from the date of filing of the Application till full payment and/or realisation. After the change of jurisdiction, the same was transferred to this Tribunal from DRT-II, Mumbai and registered as T.A. No. 75/2023.

¶19

Facts as succinctly set out in the O.A./T.A. are that the Defendant No.1 is the Borrower and Defendant No.2 & 3 are the Guarantors. It is stated that that in or about September, 2009, the Applicant, at the request of Defendants, sanctioned and granted the Cash Credit facility of Rs.25.00 crore to the Defendant No.1 vide sanction letter

¶20

Page 2 of 8

¶21

TOA 75 of 2023

¶22

dated 26.09.2009 which was renewed on 24.01.2011 and lastly on 11.04.2012.

¶23

In order to secure the repayment of the said facility, the Defendants executed the various loaning and security documents on 01.12.2009 which includes Agreement of Loan for Overall Limit; Agreement of Hypothecation of Goods and Assets; Deed of Guarantee for Overall Limit; Undertaking dated 17.11.2009 and Letter regarding the Grant of Individual Limits within the overall limit etc.

¶24

In order to further secure the said loan facility, the Defendant No.1 hypothecated its movable assets and current assets (described in Annexure “A” of OA, in favour of the Applicant and also created first mortgage/charge on its immoveable properties as a security for repayment of the said credit facility. The details of the properties are as under :

¶25

(a) Land at Survey No.51, Hissa No.1-A-2 at Village Lodhiwali, Taluka Khalapur, Dist. Raigad, admeasuring 1 Hectare 55 Are (Annexure “A-1” of OA).

¶26

(b) Land at Survey No.55, Hissa No.1/12 at Village Lodhiwali, Taluka Khalapur, Dist. Raigad, admeasuring 0 Hectare 50 Are (Annexure “A-2” of OA).

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

TOA 75 of 2023

¶29

(c) Land at Survey No.52, Hissa No.1/26 at Village Lodhiwali, Taluka Khalapur, Dist. Raigad, admeasuring 0 Hectare 09 Are (Annexure “A-3” to OA).

¶30

(d) Land at Survey No.52, Hissa No.1/11 at Village Lodhiwali, Taluka Khalapur, Dist. Raigad, admeasuring 0 Hectare 48 Are (Annexure “A-4” to OA).

¶31

(e) Land at Survey No.52, Hissa No.1/17 admeasuring 0 Hectare 05 Are and Survey No.52, Hissa No.1/20, admeasuring 0 Hectare 25 Are at Village Lodhiwali, Taluka-Khalapur, Dist. Raigad (Annexure “A-5” of OA).

¶32

(f) Land at Survey No.58, Hissa No.8 admeasuring 1 Hectare 07 Are 0 Prati and Survey No.84A Hissa No.15A admeasuring 0 Hectare 35 Are 3 Prati and Survey No.59, Hissa No.2, admeasuring 0 Hectare 49 Are 8 Prati at Village Lodhivali, Taluka-Khalapur, Dist. Raigad (Annexure “A-6” of OA).

¶33

(g) Land at Survey No.42, Hissa No.0 at Village Vadval, TalukaKhalapur, Dist. Raigad admeasuring 3 Hectare 13 Are 60 Prati (Annexure “A-7” of OA).

¶34

(h) Land at Survey No.58, Hissa No.3 admeasuring 1 Hectare 43 Are 90 Prati and Survey No.58 Hissa No.12 admeasuring 0 Hectare 42 Are 0 Prati situate at Village Lodhiwali, Taluka-

¶35

Page 4 of 8

¶36

TOA 75 of 2023

¶37

Khalapur, District & Registration District Raigad (Annexure “A-8” of OA).

¶38

Further, the Defendant No.1 deposited all the title documents of the abovementioned properties with the Applicant and confirmed the creation of mortgage vide their respective letters of confirmation dated 02.12.2009 and 26.11.2012.

¶39

It is further stated that the Defendants signed Revival Letter dated 23.05.2012 thereby acknowledged liability in respect of the said credit facilities.

¶40

The Applicant further stated that the Defendant No.1 has admitted its liability to the Applicant to the extent of Rs.25,31,73,086/- in its audited Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2012.

¶41

However, the Defendants failed to adhere the financial discipline and neglected to make the payment of the dues thus, the account of the Defendant No.1 became irregular and the same was classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 14.11.2012. Thereafter, the Applicant issued various letters and reminders to the Defendants and also issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2020 dated 10.10.2013 called upon the Defendants to make the payment of the outstanding dues but they failed to pay the dues. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

TOA 75 of 2023

¶44

Notices were issued to the Defendants, they put their appearance through counsel and filed the written statement however, no CAOD has been filed by the Defendants thus, their right to file the CAOD was closed vide order dated 14.06.2016.

¶45

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan Documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed on 04.12.2015 through Chief Manager, Mr. Sanjay T. Gawhale.

¶46

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the Defendants since 30.08.2022

¶47

Since the Defendants failed to prove the allegations made in the written statement, further despite opportunities failed to appear before this Tribunal to argue the matter, therefore, the WS filed by the Defendants is not being considered.

¶48

Record reveals that during the pendency of the OA, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has informed that the Applicant has sold one of the mortgaged properties i.e. Land at Survey No.42, Hissa No.0 at Village Vadval, Taluka-Khalapur, Dist. Raigad admeasuring 3 Hectare 13 Are 60 Prati (Annexure “A-7” of OA), through e- auction on 29.09.2017 and recovered a sum of Rs.7,37,29,925/-.

¶49

Page 6 of 8

¶50

TOA 75 of 2023

¶51

It is also informed by the Applicant that the Applicant has realized the claim of the Applicant as follows:

¶52

Cash Credit Facility A/c No. 30864614426 Amount Ledger outstanding with interest applied Rs.25,20,55,390 upto 31.07.2012 Add; Interest due from 01.08.2012 to Rs.7,58,30,196/18.06.2014 Total Rs.32,78,85,586/- Less; Amount received/realized from Rs.7,37,29,925/20.03.2015 to 13.11.2017: Balance Amount Rs.25,41,55,661/-

¶53

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 the Defendant No. 1 to 3 is joint and several.

¶54

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application filed by the Applicant Bank deserves to be allowed against the defendant No.1 to 3.

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

(i) I allow this OA and direct the Defendant No.1 to 3 to pay to the Applicant, jointly and severally, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs.25,41,55,661/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores

¶57

Page 7 of 8

¶58

Forty One Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred Sixty One only) together with further interest at the rate of 16.50% p.a. from the date of filing of the present OA till its realization .

¶59

(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets, mortgaged properties as well as other personal and moveable assets of the Defendants.

¶60

(iii) Defendants are hereby directed not to deal with their properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶61

(iv) Defendant shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶62

(v) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal

¶63

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

¶64

File be consigned to record.

¶65

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 28.07.2023 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.

¶66

Page 8 of 8

State Bank of India v. Macrocosm Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Macrocosm Industries Pvt. Ltd.

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 Ambica Metal and Alloy Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus M M Metals

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. Khodal Impex

Canara Bank versus Sri Deepanjal Bora

State Bank of India versus Jay Jit Goshwami

State Bank of India versus Macrosom Metals and Energy Private Limited