Allowed

Canara Bank v. Bhilai Bricks Industries

DRT5 Aug 2024OA/316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed Canara Bank's claim against borrowers and guarantors of M/s Bhitai Bricks Industries for Rs. 60.47 lakh. The court fixed interest at 9.5% p.a. sanctioned sale of mortgaged and personal assets, and ordered issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 60,47,598.00 with interest at 9.5% p.a., sale of mortgaged and personal properties, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Bhilai Bricks 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 Patel)

¶4

Original Application No. - 316/22

¶5

Canara Bank, Smriti Nagar, Bhitai, District-Durg (C.G. )

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Bhitai Bricks lndustries, Through its ProprietorMrs. Shanti Pandey, Vittage-Dhor, P.C. No.-24, Tehsi[-Patan, Distt.^-Durg (C.G.0

¶9

Mrs. Shanti Pandey, W/o Late Shyama Charan Pandey

¶10

Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Shyama charan Pandey

¶11

Smt. Pooja Pandey, D/o Late Shyama Charan Pandey

¶12

Sachin Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Shyama Charan Pandey

¶13

(2 to 5 R/o LIG 80, Ward No.-10, Vaishati Nagar, Supela, Bhitai, District-Durg, C.G. 490020) Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Vinay Tripathi,^Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Dated : 05'h August, 2024)

¶17

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^{present OriginalApptication} u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and^{BankruptcyAct on 03103122against the} Defendants for recovery of^Rs. 60,47,598.00^{(RupeesSixty Lac, Fourty Seven} Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety^{Eight onty) alongwithinterestand other} retiefs as stated.

¶18

The brief facts of the case^{are that on the request of} Defendant No,-'l through its^{Proprietor DefendantNo.-2, the AppticantBank} sanctioned OCC/Cash Credit^{Limit of Rs' 53 Lac on 15/01 /18 whichwas} subsequentty restructured^{and converted into wcTL(working Capital Term}

¶19

)

¶20

oA 316122

¶21

Loan) and FITL on 13/02/20 as per RBI covid guidelines. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitity the Defendant No.-1 & 2 as borrowers and Defendant No.-3 to 5 as guarantors in addition to execution of loan and guarantee documents have atso created equitable mortgage over the immovable property, i.e., Patwari Hatka No.-11, Khasra No.-782l2, situated at Vitlage-Dhaur, Tehsit-Patan, District-Durg, totaI area 0.49 hect. The Defendants availed the credit facitities but faited to [iquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Notice dated 19/05/21 under the Securitisation Act by the Applicant Bank. The Applicant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-'16 which were proved by Shri Sandeep Kumar Deshmukh, Senior Manager.

¶22

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30/09/22. 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 severalty liabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its application has ctaimed interest at contractual rate with monthty rests. However, I feel it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @09.50% p.a. simpte pendentetite and future ti[[ reatization of the dues. The mortgaged property is liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due along with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶23

The Originat Apptication is allowed and it is ordered as under-

¶24

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severally Rs. 60,47,598.00 (Rupees Sixty Lac, Fourty Seven Thousand, F'ive Hundred and Ninety Eight onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @09.50% per annum simple from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e.,03103122, with costs titt its reatization.

¶25

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to setl 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 Applicant Bank.

¶26

¶27

()A 3 t6/22

¶28

iii) A Recovery Certificate^{be issued uls 19(72)of Recoveryof} Debts and Bankruptcy Act.^{The appticantbank may fite a memo of cost} within 7 days for^preparing Recovery^Certificate.

¶29

^August,2024. 4 I v (Ram N was ate|.) Presidinq Officer

¶30

Judgment^pronounced in the^{oPen court on this 05th Day of August,2024.}

Canara Bank v. Bhilai Bricks Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Bhilai Bricks 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

Canara Bank versus Shree Balaji Industries

Rajiv Agrawal versus Centrum Home Finance

M s Satpura Drillers versus Bank of Baroda

Mukesh Banavareela Jatav versus Home First Finance Company India Private Limited

Canara Bank versus N S Engineering

Smt Kirti Bala Solanki versus Bank of Baroda