Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S B C Enterprises

DRT23 Sept 2024OA/160/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Central Bank of India under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act for recovery of outstanding dues.

What did the court decide?

Ordered defendants to pay Rs. 2,48,63,808.75 with 10.90% p.a. interest; issue Recovery Certificate under S. 19(2); restrain defendants from dealing with assets.

Central Bank of India versus M/S B C Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

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

¶4

Originol Applicotion No. - 160/23

¶5

Central Bank of lndia, Pipariya, Hoshangabad (M.P.)

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) M/s B.C. Enterprises, Prop.^-5hri Brajgopat Mandhanya, Mangalwara Bajar, Pipariya, Distt.-Hoshangabad^(M.P. ) 461 775

¶9

1. Shri Brajgopat Mandhanya, S/o Shri ChouthimaI Mandhanya

¶10

1. Shri Haribattabh Mandhanya, S/o Shri Brajgopal Mandhanya

¶11

(2 & 3 R/o House No.-195, Titak Ward,

¶12

Pipariya, Hoshangabad 461775\ Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Adamya Bajpai,^Advocate

¶14

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Dated : 23'd September,2024)

¶17

The Appticant-Bank has fited the Present Original Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on^{27/01 123 against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,48,63,808.75^{(RupeesTwo Crore, Fourty} Eight Lac, Sixty Three Thousand, Eight Hundred Eight^{and Paisa SeventyFive} onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that on the^requestof Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Defendant^{No.-2,the ApplicantBank} enhanced the existing OD Limit of Rs. 106 Lac to^{CC Limit of Rs. 200 Lac on} 07 103119 which was renewed on30103/21, WCTL of^{Rs. 40} lac^on06/06/20 and GECL of Rs. 20,05,3101- on 22112121 . ln consideration of the^{sanction of} credit facitities the DefendantNo.-1 & 2 as borrower and^{DefendantNo.-3as} guarantor in addition to execution of [oan and guarantee documents have atso created equitabte mortgage over the immovabte^{property,i.e.,}

¶19

Diverted Land Khasra No.'174, Ptot No.-97, Titak^{Ward,Pipariya} i) District-Hoshangabad, area 850 sq.ft.; betonging to Defendant^No.'2;

¶20

¶21

oA 160/23

¶22

ii) Diverted Land Khasra No'-86/9, Gram^{HatwasPH No'-20,} Tehsit-Pipariya, Distt.-Hoshangabad, area¹⁰⁸⁷⁵ sq.ft';^betongingto Defendant No.-3.

¶23

The Defendants availed the credit facitities but^{failed to Iiquidate the} outstanding dues despite issuance of Notice u/s^{13(2)dated 05/08/22of the} Securitisation Act by the Appticant Bank. The Applicant-Bank^{has relied upon} the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-28 which were^{provedby Shri Hari S'ingh} Verma, Chief Manager.

¶24

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were^proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08/04/24. 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 severatly liabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its application has claimed interest @10.90%^p.a. with monthty rests. However, I feel it fair and reasonable to grant interest @10.90% p.a. simpte pendentelite and future tit[ realization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are tiable to be sold for recovery of amount due a(ong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶25

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

¶26

i) The Defendants do pay^jointty and severalty Rs. 2,48,63,808.75 (Rupees Two Crore, Fourty Eight Lac, Sixty Three Thousand, Eight Hundred Eight and Paisa Seventy Five onty) together with pendentelite and future interest @10.90% per annum simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 27 /01 /23, with costs titt its reatization.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

oA t60123

¶30

iii) A Recovery Certificate be^issued uls^{19(221 of Recovery of} Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The^{applicant bank may fite a memo of cost} within 7 days for preparing Recovery^Certificate'

¶31

Judgment^pronounced in^{the open court on this 23'd Day of September,7024'}

¶32

h
.l6,
m iwas Patet)
Presidin e Officer

Central Bank of India v. M/S B C Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S B C 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

Punjab and Maharshtra Cooperative Bank versus Mohd. Kalimuddin

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited versus M/S Sir Syed Educational and Social Welfare Society

State Bank of India versus Surendra Singh Rathore

Smt Janki Rajput Died Person through Legal Heirs versus Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.

Om Prakash Gupta versus Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Tikaram Sahu