Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ms Bageshwari Industries

DRT2 Aug 2024OA/305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application to recover over Rs. 60 lakh along with interest and costs against the defendants, who were absent. The court directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate and an injunction restraining disposal of assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 60,48,610.43 with interest; Recovery Certificate to be issued under s. 19(2A); Injunction against transfer of assets.

Canara Bank versus Ms Bageshwari 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

Original Applicotion No. 305/23

¶5

Canara Bank, SME Branch, Nandini Road, Bhitai (C.G.)

¶6

.... AppIicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) M/s Bageshwari lndustries, Through its ProprietorShri Satyendra Singh

¶9

1. Shri Satyendra Singh, S/o Shri Deonath Singh

¶10

(Both at 163/8, Light lndustrial Area, Bhitai, C.G. )

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Shri Alok Mishra,^Advocate

¶13

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Dated : 02"d August, 2024)

¶16

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^present Original Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 04103123^{against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 60,48,610.43^(Rupees Sixty^{Lac, FourtyEight} Thousand, Six Hundred Ten and Paisa Fourty Three onty) along with interest and other reliefs as stated.

¶17

2, The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-'l through its Proprietor Defendant No.-2, the Appticant^Bank sanctioned open Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 10 Lac on 01 /03/05 which was enhanced upto Rs. 60 Lac on 31 110114 and subsequently restructu red / reduced to Rs. 10 Lac as welt as sanctioned WCTL^(Working Capital Term Loan) of Rs. 53 Lac on27 112/19, Term Loan^(GECL) of Rs 12.60 Lac on 71 110120 and Term Loan(GECL-EXT) of Rs. 5.90 Lac on 20/11 /21 . ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendants in addition to execution of loan documents have atso created equitabte mortgage over their immovable property as detailed in Para-S(f) of the OA. The Defendants availed the credit facilities and also executed Letters of Acknowledgment of Debt &. Security lastly on 78103122. The accounts were ctassified as NPA

¶18

¶19

0A 305/23

¶20

from 22/05/22 and whiLe initiation of action under the^{SecuritisationAct the} Applicant Bank sotd the mortgage^property in auction to^{Shri HarendraSingh} (hereinafter referred as auction purchaser) who has submitted the highest bid of Rs.26.93Lac and sate certificate issued to him on 05/12122.^The amount received from the auction^purchaser has been appropriated in Working Capital Term Loan account by the entire dues were not liqu idated / satisfied. The Appticant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-33 which were proved by Shri Chandrakant Tandekar, Manager.

¶21

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15112173. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severalty liable to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Applicant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @11.25%^p.a. with monthty rests in open cash credit limit account, interest @1 1.05% p.a. with monthly rests in working capital term loan account, interest @9.25% p.a. with monthly rests in term loan (GECL) account and term loan (GECL-EXT) account. However, I feel it fair and reasonable to grant interest @11.25% p.a. in open cash credit account, interest @1 1.05% p.a. in working capital term [oan account and interest @9.25% p.a. in term toan (GECL) and term toan (GECL-EXT) accounts simple pendentelite and future tit[ reatization of the dues. The personal properties and assets of the Defendants are liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due.

¶22

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

¶23

i) The Defendants do pay^jointty and severatty Rs. 60,48,610.43 (Rupees Sixty Lac, Fourty Eight Thousand, Six Hundred Ten and Paisa Fourty Three only) together with pendentelite and future interest @'1 1.25% p.a. in open cash credit account, interest @11.05%^p.a. in working capital term loan account and interest @9.25% p.a. in term toan^(GECL) and term toan^(GECL- EXT) accounts simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 04/03/23, with costs ti tl its reatization.

¶24

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to seu the personal^properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring,

¶25

¶26

on 305/23

¶27

encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing^with their^{properties/ assets} without first paying the claim of the Appticant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this^{02nd Day of August,707}

¶30

^{of August,August,707} .>,\ v' ( P ) Presidine Off icer

Canara Bank v. Ms Bageshwari Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Bageshwari 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

Gourav Welding Works versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Ms Achalnath Electricals versus Indian Bank

Palash Maheshwari versus Cholamandalam Investment and Financ Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Shree Balaji Industries

Rajiv Agrawal versus Centrum Home Finance

M s Satpura Drillers versus Bank of Baroda