Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S v and v Pet Industries

DRT18 Nov 2024OA/1369/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's original application for recovery of Rs. 1.05 crore against defendants. The court ordered joint and several liability with 11% interest and authorized sale of mortgaged and personal assets following issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,05,65,309.12 with 11% p.a. interest; mortgaged and personal properties liable for sale; injunction against alienation; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S v and v Pet Industries — Banking and Recovery | 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 Applicotion No. - 1369/22

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Regional Stress Asset Recovery Branch, Jabatpur Appticant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s V and V Pet lndustries,

¶8

01 ) Through the Partners, ln f ront of Toyota Showroom, Rewa Road, Kripatpur, Satna

¶9

Vijay Gupta, S/o Janki Prasad Gupta, ln front of Pari House, Krishna Nagar, Raghuraj nagar, Satna 485001

¶10

Vikas Adwani, S/o Chandrabhan Adwani

¶11

1. Mahesh Kumar Adwani, S/o Chiman Das Adwani

¶12

1. ChandrabhanAdwani, S/o Chiman Das Adwani

¶13

(3 to 5 R/o Ward No.-21, Near Anand Bakery, Sindhi CamP, Raghurajnagar, Satna

¶14

Poonam Gupta, Di o Rajendra Prasad Gupta, R/o Krishna Nagar, Near Purihouse, Satna⁴⁸⁵⁰⁰¹ Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Appticant :^{Shri R.N. Roy, Advocate}

¶16

Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Dated : 18th November, 2024)

¶19

The Appl,icant-Bank^{has fited the present OriginalApptication} uls 19 of Recovery of^{Debts and BankruptcyAct on 15/11122against the} Defendants for recovery^{of Rs. 1,05,65,309.12(RupeesOne Crore, Five Lac,} Sixty Five Thousand,^{Three Hundred NineandPaisa Twetve on[y)atong with} interest and other^{retiefsas stated.}

¶20

¶21

oA 1369122

¶22

2, The brief facts of the case are that^{the Defendant No.-1is a} partnership firm of which Defendant No'-2 to 5 are/were^{Partners and the} Partnership firm was reconstituted on^{29105121and the Defendant No.-6} was newty inducted Partner in^ptace of^{Defendant No'-3 who has beenshown} as retired Partner. The Defendant No.-1^{was avaitingTermLoan of Rs. 50} lac and Cash Credit Hypothecation Limit of^{Rs. 36.25 Lac aggregatingRs.} 86,25 Lac from November 2018. On the further^{request of Defendant No.-1,} the Appticant Bank sanctioned BOB Guaranteed^{EmergencyCredit Line} Scheme (BGECL) by way of Working Capital Term^Loan of^{Rs. 16.12 Lacon} 15110120 and the credit facilities were re-structured by way of Term^Loanof Rs.42.79 Lac, C.C. Hypo Limit of Rs. 36.25 Lac, AWCTL of Rs. 16.12 Lac, FITL Demand Loan (fresh) of Rs. 1,50,4721- and WCTL^(new) of^Rs. 1,92,3081- on 24/12/70. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant No.-1 through its Partners as borrower and Defendant No.-2 to 5 in their individuat capacity as guarantors in addition to execution of loan and guarantee documents have also created equitabte mortgage over the immovable^properties, i.e.,

¶23

i) Khasra No.-171014/kal1l2l7, 1211/211/kha/7 area 0.067 hectare, situated at Krapalpur, Ward No.-16, P.H. No.-56182, R.l. Circte Satna, Tehsi[-raghurajnagar, Distt.-Satna (M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.-4 and 5;

¶24

ii) Khasra No.-479 l1lkal1l3,479l2l1area 0.10 hectare, situated at Mahurachh Kadaita, P.H. No.-40, R.l. Circte Sajjanpur, Tehsit-rampur Beghelan, Distt.-Satna (M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.-2.

¶25

The Defendants availed the credit facitities but faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despite initiation of act'ion under the Securitisation Act by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-31 which were proved by Shri Girish Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager.

¶26

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16/05/24, 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 liabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has claimed interest @1 1% p.a. with monthty rests. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @11% p.a. simple pendentetite and future titl rea[ization of the

oA 1369t22

dues. The mortgaged properties are liable to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶31

The Original Apptication is atlowed and it is ordered as under-

¶32

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severalty Rs. 1,05,65,309.12 (Rupees One Crore, Five Lac, Sixty Five Thousand, Three Hundred Nine and Paisa Twelve on[y) together with pendentetite and future interest @11% per annum simple from the date of fiting of the OA, t.e., 15/11/22, with costs ti[[ its reatization.

¶33

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to sett the mortgaged as wetl as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way deating with their properties/assets without first paying the claim of the Appticant^Bank.

¶34

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

¶35

Judgment^p ronounced in the open court^{on this '18th Day of November, 2024.}

¶36

g-14
v
m Niwas Patel)
Presidine Officer

Bank of Baroda v. M/S v and v Pet Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S v and v Pet Industries

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

State Bank of India versus M/s Mahamritunjay Motors

Smt Rama Yadav versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Mukesh Yadav versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Ltd.

Mr Gangaram Singoriya versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus R B Food Products Prop Shri Ramesh Gangwani

Icici Bank Limited versus Virbhadra