Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Amit Bhargav

DRT12 Dec 2024OA/1211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank filed an original application for recovery of dues totaling approximately 23.98 lakhs secured by an equitable mortgage over immovable properties. The court ruled in favor of the applicant, directing defendants to pay the amount with 7% interest and ordered the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 23,98,915.20 with 7% p.a. interest; mortgaged and personal properties to be sold for recovery; recovery certificate to be issued; injunction on alienating assets.

Idbi Bank versus Amit Bhargav — Money Laundering | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Originol Application No. - 1211122

¶5

lDBl Bank Ltd., Mandideep Branch, District-Raisen (M. P. )

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Ve rsu s

¶8

01 ) Shri Amit Bhargav, S/o Shri Vipin Bhargav,

¶9

Proprietor-M/ s Amit Bhargava

¶10

Shri Atok Bhargav, S/o Shri Vipin Bhargav

¶11

(Both at House No.-61, Ward No.-17, Station Road, Mandideep, District-Raisen , M.P. 462046)

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Jagbandan Patet, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Dated : 12th December, 2024)

¶16

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Original Apptication uls 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 06/10/22 aga'inst the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 23,98,915.20 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh, Ninety Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifteen and Paisa Twenty onty) along with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1, the Appticant Bank sanctioned 18 Lakh on 24/06116 whlch was renewed to Rs. 17 Lakh on 22111 116 which further renewed lastty on 30101 /19 and GECL facitity by way of Working Capitat Term Loan (WCTL) of Rs.3.42 Lakh on 30/05120. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facilities the Defendant No.-1 as borrower and Defendant No.-2 in additron to execution of loan documents have also created equitabte mortgage over the immovabte properties, i.e.,

¶18

i) att that Residential House admeasuring 1076 sq.ft. constructed on [and bearing Survey No.-348, situated at Sheetat Megha City, 6ajju

¶19

¶20

oA t2t1l22

¶21

Pipatiya Road, Mandideep, District-Raisen^(M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.-1;

¶22

ii) att that piece and parcel of Ptot No.-321 &. 332, admeasuring area 800 sq.ft. each, i.e., total 1600 sq.ft., situated at 'Sundaram Vihar', Ward No.-17, Near Raitway Station, Tehsit-Goharganj, Mandideep, DistrictRaisen (M.P.) being part of Land Revenue Survey No.-45811, 4581211, 458/311 and 459/2 and atl the structures thereon; betonging to Defendant No.^-2.

¶23

The Defendant No.-1 availed the credit facitities and atso executed Acknowledgment of Debt and Confirmation of Security on 31 /12119 but did not abide by the terms and conditions of the credit facitities. The accounts were classified as NPA and the Defendants faited to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Notice on 15/02/22 and initiation of action under the Securitisation Act by the Appticant Bank. The AppticantBank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-23 which were proved by Shri Nitin Parashar, Branch Head.

¶24

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 78104/23. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty tiabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its application has claimed interest at the contractual rate but has not specified the prevailing rate of interest as on the date of fiting of OA. However, I feel it fair and reasonable to grant interest @7% p.a, simpte pendentetite and future titl reatization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due along with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶25

The Originat Application is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶26

i) The Defendants do pay^jointty and severally Rs. 23,98,915.20 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh, Ninety Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifteen and Paisa Twenty onty) together with pendentelite and future interest @7% per annum simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i,e.,06/10/22, with costs titl its reatization.

¶27

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to setl the mortgaged as we[[ as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues.

¶28

)

¶29

oA t2tv22

¶30

The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way deating with their properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Applicant Bank.

¶31

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22\ of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may fite a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶32

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 12th Day of December,7074.

¶33

yV
.v
( Pa,:r
Presidinq Officer

Idbi Bank v. Amit Bhargav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Amit Bhargav

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

Shri Inder Singh versus Srg Housing Finance Ltd.

Seema Sharma versus Shriram Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Reshma Khan

Anand Kumar Gupta versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Bharat Electronics

Icici Bank Limited versus Premlata Somani