Allowed

Bank of India v. Nikhil Girish Ahuja

DRT18 Apr 2024OA/229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This reviewable judgment considers an Original Application under Section 19(1) of the RDBA 1993 filed by Bank of India for recovery of a loan of Rs. 23,27,083.22. With defendants absent, the Tribunal found the claim documents unchallenged and within the limitation period, allowing the application.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 23,27,083.22 with future interest at 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of India versus Nikhil Girish Ahuja — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 21/03/2022 Registered on: 18/07/2022 Decided on: 18/04/2024 Duration: Y. M. D. 2 – 0 - 28

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 229 of 2022

¶4

Total claim amount – Rs. 23,27,083.22 ps Bank of India,

¶5

a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Star House, Plot No. C-5, G Block, BandraKurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 0051 and having one of its Branch at Dhule through Constituted Power of attorney holder Mr Narendra Raghunath Deore, having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 Mr Nikhil Girish Ahuja, Proprietor Shri Sai Traders, adult, occupation business, R/o Block No. B- 6, Room No. 10, Kumarnagar, Sakri Road, Dhule – 424001 PAN No. BSSPA1742C

¶9

2 Mr Girish Hansraj Ahuja adult, occupation business, R/o Block No. B- 6, Room No. 10, Kumarnagar, Sakri Road, Dhule – 424001 PAN No. AAKPA2503J

¶10

…Defendants

¶11

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 229/2022)

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

For the applicant-bank Mr. S.R. Vani, Adv., a/w. Mr. S.R. Vakil, Adv.

¶15

For Defendants

¶16

Absent

¶17

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer

¶18

Pronounced on : 18^th April 2024

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of the dues in the total sum of Rs. 23,27,083.22 ps (Rs. twenty three lakhs twenty seven thousand eighty three and ps. twenty two only) together with future interest @ 13.10% p.a., with monthly rests from the date of Orig. Application till repayment/ realization.

¶21

Applicant-bank, in short, pleads that defendant No.1 as borrower and Deft. No.2 as guarantor obtained cash credit loan facility of Rs. 20.00 lakhs to carry on their business, from the applicant bank, vide sanction letter dated 17/10/2017, on execution of relevant documents in favour of applicant bank to

¶22

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 229/2022)

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

secure the loan amount and on acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment alongwith floating rate of interest @ 11.10% p.a., with monthly rests. Applicant bank pleads that however, the defendants failed to follow the repayment programme as agreed and thereby the loan account classified as NPA on 15/04/2021 and thereafter the applicant bank issued legal demand notice U/S. 13(2) of the Act on 14/01/2022. Applicant pleads that in the meantime, defendants acknowledged the amount due against them by executing letter of acknowledgment of debt due and securities on 17/09/2020. Applicant pleads that though the defendants availed sufficient period to repay the loan amount outstanding against them, they failed to repay it. Hence this Orig. Application.

¶25

Though both the defendants served with summons of the Orig. Application, by hand, vide service affidavit Exh.7, they remained absent and therefore, the Orig. Appln. proceeded ex parte against them, vide order dated 01/07/2023.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the

¶28

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 229/2022)

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig. Application against the defendant, as prayed for ?

¶31

Perused the record. The applicant bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Mr Ravindra Raghunath Deore, Chief Manager, (Exh.4). The applicant bank also filed list of original documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 10 documents to corroborate and prove its claim, as given in the Original Application, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 10 on behalf of the applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in

¶32

the Original Application have gone unrebutted because of absence of the defendants in the matter, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant-bank is entitled for the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of the documents on record shows that the Orig. Application is filed well within the period of limitation of three years. Hence I hold that the defendants are liable to pay to applicant-bank the claimed amount in Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic-19 long period and costs. Hence the following

¶33

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 229/2022)

Page 4 of 6

order.

O R D E R

(A) The Original Application is allowed with costs.

¶38

(B) Defendants No.1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly or severally to the applicant-bank the aggregate sum of Rs. 23,27,083.22 ps (Rs. twenty three lakhs twenty seven thousand eighty three and ps. twenty two only) together with future interest @ 8% p.a., simple, from the date of filing the Orig. Application till repayment/ realization.

¶39

(C) Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Orig. Appln. shall be reduced from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶40

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the and as mortgaged hypothecated properties, described in the Orig. Application towards realization of the dues of the defendants;

¶41

(E) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

(Madkar)

¶44

(F) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the Original Application.

¶45

(G) The applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶46

(H) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶47

(I) Applicant-bank to file affidavit before the Recovery Officer about sale of property and appropriation of money in the loan account under the securitization, if any, before issuance of Demand Notice.

¶48

(J) Copy of order be sent to the Recovery Officer.

¶49

(K) Communicate order to the parties concerned.

¶50

Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶51

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 18^th April 2024 Aurangabad

¶52

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 229/2022)

¶53

Page 6 of 6

Bank of India v. Nikhil Girish Ahuja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Nikhil Girish Ahuja

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 Ms Sai Samarth Traders thro it Prop Shripad Vijaykumar Kapre

Ktk Infotronics Private Limited versus the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Hotel Harsh

State Bank of India versus M/S Datta Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kulaswamini Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Gajanan Namdeo Waghmode