Allowed

Bank of India v. M/s Yogita Fusion Enterprise

DRT6 Feb 2024OA/105/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19(1) of the RDBFI Act to recover Rs.56,67,212/- along with future interest from the defaulting sole proprietorship, noting the evidence remained unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Awarded recovery of Rs.56,67,212/- with pendent lite and future interest at 11.6% per annum and issued a Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus M/s Yogita Fusion Enterprise — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 16.11.2018 Registered on : 04.03.2022 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.105 OF 2022

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT : Rs.56,67,212/-

¶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. Yogita Fusion Enterprise, A Sole Proprietary Concern, through its Sole Proprietor Ms Yogita Santosh Varaskar, having address at 127 (South), A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.

¶9

Ms Yogita Santosh Varadkar, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Yogita Fusion Enterprise, A Sole Proprietary Concern, having address at 127

¶10

Page 1 of 5

¶11

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

¶12

APPEARANCES

¶13

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

¶14

Shri Deepak M Thakkar Presiding Officer

¶15

HEARING : 6^th February 2024. PRONOUNCEMENT : 6^th February 2024.

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

(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.59,67,212/- with future interest thereon from the date of presentation of the Original Application till payment/realization and to enforce the hypothecated securities.

¶18

(2) Defendant no.2 carries on the business by the name and style of M/s. Yogita Fusion Enterprise as sole proprietrix.

¶19

(3) On 26^th October 2016, defendants approached the

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

applicant seeking financial assistance by way of cash credit facility. The applicant sanctioned the cash credit limit of Rs.49 lakhs. On 27^th October 2016, defendants signed and executed the loan and security documents.

¶22

(4) After that, defendants committed default in payment of interest and repayment of the credit facilities. Therefore, on 31^st December 2017, the applicant classified the account as NPA. On 9^th October 2016, the applicant issued the demand notice calling upon the defendants to liquidate the entire outstanding. The packet containing the demand notice was returned unserved.

¶23

(5) As of 15^th November 2018, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.56,67,212/-. 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.

¶24

(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. On 12^th October 2023, defendants were set ex-parte. The defendants did not apply to set aside the ex-parte order.

¶25

(7) The applicant filed affidavit (exhibit-6) in lieu of

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

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-8, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶28

(8) Ms Chavan does not press for the relief concerning penal interest and hypothecated security, therefore, the question of passing the order does not arise.

¶29

(9) Ms Chavan requests the Tribunal to issue Recovery Certificate for Rs.56,67,212/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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

(12) In view of the observations made hereinabove,

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be granted.

¶35

(13) Hence, the following order:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(A) The Original Application No.105 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶38

(B) Defendants are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.56,67,212/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.

¶39

¶40

(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.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

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

¶43

Nidhi

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Bank of India v. M/s Yogita Fusion Enterprise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/s Yogita 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

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 Anita Embroidery Enterprises

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Santosh Sarda