Allowed

State Bank of India v. Macrosom Metals and Energy Private Limited

DRT28 Jul 2023TA/76/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the transfer original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues. The court found the defendants failed to prove allegations and dismissed their right to file a relief affidavit, directing them to pay the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Direct defendants to pay Rs.52,49,95,310/- plus further interest at 16.50% p.a. within 60 days, with a Recovery Certificate issued to the Recovery Officer.

State Bank of India versus Macrosom Metals and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

TOA 76 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. 76 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 76 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.52,49,95,310/- (Rupees Fifty Two Crore Forty Nine Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred Ten 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. 76/2023.

¶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 August, 2009, the Applicant, at the request of Defendants, sanctioned and granted the Stock and Book Debts facility of Rs.25.00 crore to the Defendant No.1 vide sanction letter dated 03.08.2009 which was renewed on 24.01.2011 and lastly on 11.04.2012.

¶20

Page 2 of 8

¶21

TOA 76 of 2023

¶22

In order to secure the repayment of the said facility, the Defendants executed the various loaning and security documents on 20.08.2009 which includes Agreement of Loan for Overall Limit; Agreement of Hypothecation of Goods and Assets; Deed of Guarantee for Overall Limit; Undertaking dated 20.08.2009 and Letter regarding the Grant of Individual Limits within the overall limit etc.

¶23

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 property as a security for repayment of the said credit facility (described in Annexure “A-1” of OA). The details of the property is as under :

¶24

(a) Lands bearing Survey Nos. 69,70,75,76,77,78,81 &82 situated at Mahalaxmi Industrial Estate, Sanand, Viramgam Highway, Taluka Sanand, District and Registration District Ahmedabad, Gujarat (Annexure “A-1” of OA).

¶25

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 Letter of Confirmation dated 09.04.2010.

¶26

The Applicant further stated that, in or about January 2011, at the request of the Defendant No.1, the Applicant sanctioned Term

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

TOA 76 of 2023

¶29

Loan of Rs.25.00 Crore which was repayable in monthly instalments from January 2011 and on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter dated 24.01.2011.

¶30

In order to further secure the said loan facility, the Defendant No.1 executed various loaning and security document all dated 27.01.2011 in favour of the Applicant including Supplemental Agreement of Loan for increase in the overall Limit, Supplemental Agreement of Hypothecation of goods and assets for increase in the overall Limit and Supplemental Deed of Guarantee executed by all the Defendants.

¶31

Further, to secure repayment of the aforesaid loan the Defendant No.1 executed a Memorandum dated 27.01.20211 recorded by the Applicant for extension of Equitable mortgage created by the Defendant no.1 on its abovementioned property for the overall limit of Rs.50.00 Crore along with Letter confirming extension of the existing mortgage and Letter regarding grant of the individual limits with the overall limit dated 27.01.2011.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Page 4 of 8

¶35

TOA 76 of 2023

¶36

classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 21.08.2012. 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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

Page 5 of 8

¶42

TOA 76 of 2023

¶43

Record reveals that during the pendency of the OA, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has informed that the Applicant has sold the mortgaged properties i.e. Lands bearing Survey No. 69, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81 & 82 situated at Mahalaxmi Industrial Estate, Sanand, Viramgam Highway, Taluka Sanand, District and Registration District Ahmedabad, Gujarat (Annexure “A-1” of OA), through e- auction on 23.12.2021 and recovered a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/-.

¶44

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

¶45

(i) DCC (Stock & Book Debts Facility) A/c No. 30864614426	Amount
Ledger outstanding with interest applied upto 31.07.2012	Rs.26,45,44,724/-
Add; Interest due from 01.08.2012 to	Rs.7,26,99,496/-
18.06.2014
Total (i)	Rs.33,72,44,220/-
(ii) Term Loan Facility A/c No. 31605303930
Principal outstanding	Rs.14,43,89,046/-
Add; Interest due upto 10.06.2014	Rs.5,59,62,044/-
Total (ii)	Rs.20,03,51,090/-
Total (i) + Total (ii)	Rs.53,75,95,310/-

¶46

Page 6 of 8

¶47

TOA 76 of 2023

¶48

Less; Amount received/realized from Rs.1,26,00,000/20.03.2015 to 05.01.2022: Balance Amount Rs.52,49,95,310/-

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

(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.52,49,95,310/- (Rupees Fifty Two Crore Forty Nine Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred Ten 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 .

¶53

Page 7 of 8

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

File be consigned to record.

¶60

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

¶61

St/-

¶62

Page 8 of 8

State Bank of India v. Macrosom Metals and Energy Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Macrosom Metals and Energy Private Limited

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

All orders in this case

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 Macrocosm Industries Pvt. Ltd.