Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S.Priti Fusion Enterprise

DRT7 Feb 2024OA/102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's Original Application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Act, 1993. The court directed the defendants to pay the outstanding debt along with interest and issued a Recovery Certificate since the allegations were uncontroverted.

What did the court decide?

A Recovery Certificate was issued directing the defendants to pay Rs.52,18,933/- with interest at 11.6% per annum.

Bank of India versus M/S.Priti Fusion Enterprise — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 16.11.2018 Registered on : 04.03.2022 Decided on : 07.02.2024 Duration : Y M D 05 02 21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2022

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT : Rs.52,18,933/-

¶5

Bank of India, A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970 having its Head Office at “Star House”, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 and a Branch Office amongst other places at Plot No.226, 8, Sardar Balwant Singh, Dhondi Marg, Near Vikrikar Bhavan, Tulsiwadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400010, through its Senior Manager (Law), Shri Harikumar S.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Priti Fusion Enterprise, A Sole Proprietary Concern, thorough its Sole Proprietor, Ms Priti J. Thakkar Jain, having address at 151 (North), A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013

¶9

Ms Priti J. Thakkar Jain, Sole Proprietor of, M/s. Priti Fusion Enterprise, A Sole Proprietary Concern, having address at 151

¶10

Page 1 of 5

¶11

(North), A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 …Defendants

¶12

APPEARANCES For the Applicant : Ms Vinaya Chavan - Advocate For Defendants : None

¶13

Shri Deepak M Thakkar Presiding Officer

¶14

HEARING : 7^th February 2024 PRONOUNCEMENT : 7^th February 2024

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

(1) This is an application under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of the Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 renamed as Recovery of the Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’) to recover Rs.52,18,933/- with future interest thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application till payment/realization and to enforce the hypothecated securities.

¶17

(2) Defendant no 2 carries on the business in the name and style of M/s. Priti Fusion Enterprise as sole proprietrix. She is the borrower who approached the applicant seeking financial

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

assistance by way of cash credit facility of Rs.45 lakhs. On 21^st October 2016, defendants signed and executed the loan and security documents. After that, she defaulted in payment of interest and repayment of the facility. Therefore, on 31^st December 2017, the applicant classified the defendants’ account as NPA.

¶20

(3) On 9^th October 2016, the applicant issued notice through its advocate to liquidate the entire outstanding. The packet containing the notice was returned unserved.

¶21

(4) As of 15^th November 2018, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.52,18,933/-. The applicant has maintained the loan ledger extract and the entries posted therein are made in the usual and ordinary course of the banking business.

¶22

(5) Since defendants failed and neglected to make the payment, the applicant was left with no other alternate but to file the Original Application which was presented on 16^th November 2018. The applicant served the summons upon the defendants who were set ex-parte on 12^th October 2023. The defendants did not apply to set aside the ex-parte order.

¶23

(6) The applicant filed affidavit (exhibit-6) in lieu of examination in chief of Mr Prashant Gajanan

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

Tambe and list of documents (exhibit-7) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at AW-1 to AW-10, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶26

(7) Ms Chavan submits that the applicant does not press for the relief concerning the penal interest and hypothecation and therefore, the question of passing the order in this regard does not arise.

¶27

(8) The learned counsel requests the Tribunal to issue the Recovery Certificate for the amount of Rs.52,18,933/- with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 11.6% per annum from the date of presentation of the Original Application, that is, 16^th November 2018 till payment/realisation. Request accepted.

¶28

(9) The Tribunal have scrutinised and examined the allegations contained in the Original Application and analysed the evidence adduced by the applicant which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted.

¶29

(10) Upon careful scrutiny and the examination of the Original Application, analysing the evidence and giving due weightage to the documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, the Tribunal views that there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by the applicant bank.

¶30

(11) In view of the observations made hereinabove,

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be granted.

¶33

(12) Hence, the following order:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(A) The Original Application No.102 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶36

(B) Defendants are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.52,18,933/with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 11.6% per annum from the date of presentation of the Original Application, that is, 16^th November 2018 till payment/realisation.

¶37

¶38

(D) The learned Registrar is directed to send a copy of the judgment and recovery certificate to (i) the applicant, (ii) defendant and (iii) the Recovery Officer by post and email.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶41

Nidhi

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Bank of India v. M/S.Priti Fusion Enterprise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S.Priti Fusion Enterprise

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

Bank of India versus M/s Anita Embroidery Enterprises

Bank of India versus M/s Yogita Fusion Enterprise

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Santosh Sarda

Bank of Baroda versus Royal Steel Traders

Bank of India versus M/s Khushbu Fashionable Cutting

Hdfc Bank versus M/s Shree Motors