Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Mallick Traders

DRT10 Jan 2024OA/417/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 25,38,482/-plus interest against the borrowers and guarantors who appeared ex-parte. A recovery certificate was directed to be issued secured by hypothecation and mortgage. The application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The claim is allowed with cost; the defendants are directed to pay Rs. 25,38,482/- with interest at 12.50% p.a.; a recovery certificate under Section 19(22) RDBA is to be issued.

State Bank of India versus Ms Mallick Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I KOLKATA

¶2

PRESENT: -SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

O.A. No.417 OF 2022

¶4

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER : 10^th January 2024

¶5

STATE BANK OF INDIA, a body Corporate constituted under the provisions of State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Corporate Centre at State Bank of India Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai – 400021 and a branch among other places at STATE BANK OF INDIA, Small & Medium Enterprises City Credit Center (SMECCC) Kolkata, 1, Strand Road, Samridhi Bhaban, Annexe Building, E – 4^th Floor, Police Station – Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001, West Bengal, commonly known as STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC-Kolkata Branch, West Bengal, within the jurisdiction as aforesaid.

¶6

............APPLICANT

¶7

-AND-

¶8

M/S. MALLICK TRADERS, a sole proprietorship business of Sri Ram Prasad Mullick, having its residence and Office at 33D, Ratu Sarkar Lane, Post Office – Chittaranjan Avenue, Police Station – Jorasankho, Kolkata – 700073, West Bengal and within the aforesaid jurisdiction.

¶9

SRI RAMA PRASAD MULLICK, (PAN NO.- AKPPM3469E & DOB – 29-02-1968) Proprietor of M/S. MALLICK TRADERS, Son of Sri Samar Nath Mullick, having its residence and office at 33D, Ratu Sarkar Lane, Post Office – Chittaranjan Avenue, Police Station – Jorasankho, Kolkata – 700073, West Bengal and within the aforesaid jurisdiction.

¶10

SMT. MANDIRA MULLICK, W/O- Ramprasad Mullick, having reside at 33D, Ratu Sarkar Lane, Post Office – Chittaranjan Avenue, Police Station – Jorasankho, Kolkata – 700073, West Bengal and within the aforesaid jurisdiction.

¶11

................. DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Bank: - Mrs. S. R. Mishra, Ld Counsel

¶13

Counsel for the Defendants:- Set ex-parte on 28.08.2023

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

The present Recovery Application is filed by the State Bank of India, nationalized Bank carrying on business of Banking all over India including from its Branch Office at STATE BANK OF INDIA, Small & Medium Enterprises City Credit Center (SMECCC) Kolkata, 1, Strand Road,

¶16

¶17

Rina S.

¶18

Samridhi Bhaban, Annexe Building, E – 4^th Floor, Police Station – Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001, for recovery of Rs. 25,38,482/- with interest @ 12.50% p.a. with monthly rest from 01.08.2022 against the Defendants till payment and/or realization. The Defendants are the borrower/guarantor/mortgager.

¶19

The service of summons was effected upon the Defendants in usual mode of postal service. Despite giving sufficient time, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed the Written Statement to controvert the claim of the Bank. Hence, the defendants are declared exparte on 28/08/2023.

¶20

The Applicant in support of its contention filed Evidence on Affidavit duly affirmed by Mr. Chandan Kr. Banik, the Dy. Manager of the Bank annexing the various documents which are exhibited.

¶21

I have perused the documents and Evidence and heard the Ld. Advocate for the Bank. By the said evidence on affidavit the Applicant could prove its claim and documents. The claim of the Bank is within the limitation and within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, the claim of the Bank should be allowed with cost.

¶22

In the above circumstances it is ordered :

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

i) Claim of the Applicants is allowed with cost. ii) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,38,482/- with interest @ 12.50% p.a. with monthly rest from 01.08.2022 against the Defendants till payment and/or realization.

¶25

iii) It is declared that the claim is secured by hypothecation of moveable and mortgage of immoveable property described in the Schedule of immoveable property as described in the Schedule ‘X’ in the OA at page 27.

¶26

iv) Let, a certificate be issued accordingly.

¶27

v) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the defendants in accordance with law.

¶28

vi) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgment for recovery of the sum against the defendants in favour of

¶29

¶30

Rina S.

¶31

the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶32

vii) The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 15/02/2024 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date.

¶33

Accordingly, the Original Application being O.A. No.417 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of. All the IAs, if any, are also disposed of.

¶34

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶35

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶36

( Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 10^th January 2024)

¶37

Place: Kolkata ( Ambuja Mohan Das ) Date: 10^th January 2024 Presiding Officer

¶38

¶39

Rina S.

¶40

PageNo.- Case No. O	OrderSheet (continuation) A/417/2022 State Bank of India vs. M/S. Mallick Traders & Ors.
Date of the order	Order with signature	Office acti with date dated signature parties wh
10^th January 2024	Ld. Advocate Mrs. S.R. Mishra appeared for the Applicant Bank. None is present on behalf of the Defendants. Matter was heard in open Court on this the day of 28/08/2023. The detailed order in three pages annexed separately. The gist of the order is as follows: O R D E R 1) Claim of the Applicants is allowed with cost. 2) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,38,482/- with interest @ 12.50% p.a. with monthly rest from 01.08.2022 against the Defendants till payment and/or realization. 3) It is declared that the claim is secured by hypothecation of moveable and mortgage of immovable property described in the Schedule of immovable property as described in the Schedule ‘X’ in the OA at page 27. 4) Let, a certificate be issued accordingly. 5) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the defendants in accordance with law. 6) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgment for recovery of the sum against the defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. 7) The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 15/02/2024 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date. 8) Accordingly, the Original Application being O.A. No.417 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of. All the IAs, if any, are also disposed of. Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website. File is consigned to the Record Room. ( Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 10^th January 2024 Place: Kolkata (Ambuja Mohan Das)	necessary

¶41

¶42

Rina S.

¶43

Date: 10^th January 2024 Presiding Officer

¶44

¶45

Rina S.

State Bank of India v. Ms Mallick Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Mallick Traders

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

Sri Sudarshan Nandy versus Hdfc Bank

Bhola Nath Chal versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Ascon Agro Products Exporters Builders Pvt. Ltd. versus the Authorised Officer M S Edelwesiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. And Anr.

Anowara Khatun and Ors. versus Authorised Officer Veritas Finance Private Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Vardhan H Jaiswal

Mr N v Phanindrudu and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank