Allowed

Bank of India v. M/s Anita Embroidery Enterprises

DRT6 Feb 2024OA/103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this recovery application, the Bank of India sought to recover Rs.57.15 lakhs plus interest from the defendants who defaulted on a working capital loan secured by hypothecated stocks held against the bank's sanctioned cash credit facility.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued ordering payment of Rs.57,15,166/- with pendent lite and future interest at 11.6% p.a. from 16.11.2018 till realization.

Bank of India versus M/s Anita Embroidery Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 16.11.2018 Registered on : 07.03.2022 Decided on : 06.02.2024 Duration : Y M D 05 02 20

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2022

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT : Rs.57,15,166/-

¶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 Marge, Near Vikrikar Bhavan, Tulsiwadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai – 4100010, through its Senior Manager (Law), Shri Harikumar S.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Anita Embroidery Enterprise, A Sole Proprietary Concern, through its Sole Proprietor Ms Anita Ghanshyam Shrivastav, having address at 121 (South), A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.

¶9

Ms Anita Ghanshyam Shrivastav, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Anita Embroidery Enterprise, having address at 121 (South), A to Z

¶10

Page 1 of 5

¶11

Industrial Estate, Ganpat Rao 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 : 6^th February 2024 PRONOUNCEMENT : 6^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.57,15,166/- 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. Anita Embroidery Enterprises as sole proprietrix.

¶18

(3) On 24^th October 2016, defendants approached the applicant seeking financial assistance by way of working capital loan against the security of

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

hypothecation of stocks. The applicant sanctioned the cash credit facility of Rs.49 lakhs repayable with interest. On 26^th October 2016, defendants executed the demand promissory note for Rs.49 lakhs repayable with interest at the rate of 12.65% per annum. Defendants also signed hypothecation agreement.

¶21

(4) After that, defendants committed default in payment of interest and repayment of the cash credit facility. On 31^st December 2017, the applicant classified the defendants’ account as NPA. On 9^th October 2018, the applicant, through its advocate, issued recall notice. Despite notice, defendants neither made the payment nor responded to it.

¶22

(5) As of the date preceding the filing of the Original Application, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.57,15,166/-. 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.

¶23

(6) 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 defendants by way of paper publication and were set ex-parte on

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

8^th May 2023 and expressly on 12^th October 2023. Defendants did not apply to set aside the ex-parte order.

¶26

(7) The applicant has filed affidavit (exhibit-6) in lieu of examination in chief of Mr Prashant Gajanan Tambe and list of documents (exhibit-7) thereby adducing in evidence the documents at AW-1 to AW-16, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶27

(8) Ms Chavan submits that the applicant does not press for the relief concerning 2% penal interest and the hypothecation and therefore, the question of passing the order in this regard does not arise.

¶28

(9) Ms Chavan requests the Tribunal to issue the Recovery Certificate for Rs.57,15,166/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.

¶29

(10) 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.

¶30

(11) 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

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by the applicant bank.

¶33

(12) In view of the observations made hereinabove, Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be granted.

¶34

(13) Hence, the following order:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(A) The Original Application No.103 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶37

(B) Defendants are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.57,15,166/- 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.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

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

¶42

Nidhi

¶43

Page 5 of 5

Bank of India v. M/s Anita Embroidery Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/s Anita Embroidery Enterprises

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

Dimple Arcade Premises Chsl versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Anand M Chaturvedi

Bairi Rakesh Ramchandram versus the Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Ritesh Vinod Shivotia

Bank of India versus M/s Yogita Fusion Enterprise

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Santosh Sarda