Allowed

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Ms Shibayya Constructions and Anr.

DRT23 Jul 2024OA/420/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte hearing, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by ARCIL against Shibayya Constructions and Subrata Das. The court determined a debt of Rs. 79,78,784.29, declared it joint and several liability, issued a recovery certificate under Section 19(22) RDBA, and debarred defendants from disposing of properties.

What did the court decide?

Debt determined at Rs. 79,78,784.29 with interest; recovery certificate issued; debarment of disposing properties; 30-day repayment period granted.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited versus Ms… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.III KOLKATA PRESENT: -SRI KAMAL DE.

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER.

¶4

O,A. No.420 oF 2022.

¶5

DATE OF DELMRY OF ORDER | 23/07/2024

¶6

ARCIL, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, having its reqistered office at Ruby lOth Floor 29, Senapati Bapat marg Dadar (w) Mumbai-4OOO28 and branch offlce at ARCIL, Chatteoee International Centre, Room No. 4, 6th Floor, 33A, LL,N, Road, Kotkata-700071, within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Tribunat.

¶7

Applicant Bank.

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

1. M/s. Shibayya Constructions, proprietor Mrs. Beauty Das, residing at 9, Tagore Park, Tiljata Road, Kotkata,^pIN-700039.

¶10

l4r, Subrata Das, residihg at 9, Tagore park, Tiljala Road, Kolkata, pIN-700039.

¶11

Defendants.

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Banki -

¶13

Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Advocate,

¶14

Set ex-parte on 16/07/2024

¶15

]U DG E [1ENT

¶16

¶17

The Applicant Bank fited the present O.A. being No. O.A./4ZO/2O22 on O4lOgl2O22 fol recovery of a total sum of Rs, 79,78,784.29l- (Rupees seventy nine lakh seventy eight thousand seven hundred eighty four and paisa twenty nine only) from the Defendants towards Loan against property together with interest, cost and other usual reljefs.

¶18

2, The Defendants are served with summons. The defendants did not appear, as there was no representation from the defendants, the case was fixed for ex-parte heanng on 16107/2024, and heard ex-parte accordingly,

¶19

The Applicant Eank examined l0 documents through Sri Monrkuntal Sonowal, Manager and authonzed signatory marked as Exhibit Annexure-1A to Exhibit Annexure-H.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applacant Bank.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is :

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled to the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties as prayed for?

¶23

As stated supra. the Defendant remained absent and did not turn up to controvert the version of the O.A, of Applicant 8ank. The Evidence Amdavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exhibits Annexure-1A to Exhibit Annexure-H marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, established the claim of the Appljcant Bank against the Defendants and OA schedule properties. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank the claims made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶24

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application is allowed ex-parte with costs, as under:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

¶28

(1) o.A. No. 42o of 2022 fired by the Applicant Bank is alowed and debt is determined with cost against the defendants. It is hereby ordered that appricant bank is entifled to recover from the defendants the totat amount to the tune of Rs. 7g,?g,784.2gl_ (Rupees seventy nane lakh seventy eight thousand seven hundred eighty four and paisa twenty nine only) with pendentelite and future interest @ 13 per annum interest with simple on the amount Ore from the date of fiting of the Originat Apptication i.e. O4rca/2022 ti fu and finat realization of the claim amount.

¶29

(2) Amount, if any, paid by the defendants in the roan accounts or amount, if any, recovered by the Appricant Bank after firing of the o.A. the same be taken into account whire arriving at the exact amount of dues/debt payable by the defendants. Accordingly, pendentelite and future interest shall be calculated on the reduced amount.

¶30

(3) Defendants are debarred from disposing, alienatang or deating with any of the properties belonging to them till the aforesaid decretat debt is recovered from the defendants.

¶31

(4) Defendants are given a time of thirty days from the date of the ludgement/Finar order for repaying of the above mentioned dues, so intimated to them. In case the defendants fail to pay the dues within the above mentioned time, the applicant bank is entrued to recover its dues by sale of securect assets, if any, Appticant bank is also entifled to proceed against personal properties of the defendants (Both movable and immovable) and atso proceed against the defendants personally to recover the dues in accordance with law.

¶32

(5) Let the Certificate of Recovery be drawn up by Ld. Registrar forthwith in terms of Judgement for issuahce of the same against defendants jn favour of the applicant bank under Sectaon 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and put up the same for issuance of the Certificate.

¶33

(6) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the

¶34

defendants in accordance with law.

¶35

(7)Ld. Regastrar of this Tribunal is dlrected to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgement for recovery of the sum against the defendant an 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.

¶36

(8)The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 23108/2024 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date.

¶37

Accordingly, the Origtnal Appltcation being O.A. No. 420 of 2022 is allowed and stands dasposed of.

¶38

Copy of the Judgement/Final Order be uptoaded in the Tribunat,s website. File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶39

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this ihe 23'd day of )uly, 2024)

¶40

( KAI4AL DE ) PRESIDING OFFICER.

¶41

Debts Recovery Tribunal-3,^Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation)

¶42

CaseNo.OANo	.42Oof2022	AssetReconstructionCompany^(India)Ltd. Vs. M/s,ShibavyaConstructions&^anr.
Date of Order		Orderwithsignature
OrderNo.07 Dt.23107^t2024	Order pronounced	(vadeseparate sheets),
	lntheresult, O.A. RecoveryCertificat	No.420of2022is allowedwithcosts. e accordingly.
ss		(KamalDe) PresidangOfficer ORT-3,Kolkata

¶43

Debts Recovery^{Tribunal-3,Kolkata} Order Sheet (Continuation)

¶44

CaseNo,O,A,l	42O/2022	assetRec;structi,on^{company(rndia) Ltd.} s.shiba constructions&Anr'
DateofOrder		orderwithsignature
OrderNo.06 ot.1610712024	Present:. ForApplicant ForDefendants	:^{Ld.Advocate Sayak Ranian Ganguly} :^None
	TheRegistry^h order^passedb despitethe^fac Oefendant.App Thematteris^p Oefendant^for closed.ttiscios Counselfor the Applicant may^f To2310712024	^{asissued noticeto theDefendantintermsof} ^{y thisTribunal.Defendanthasnot turnedup} ^{tthat thenotices have been served uponthe} licant^{prayedforhearingofthecaseex-parte'} ^{ending since2022Hencerightavailabletosole} ^{filingofW,S.andcounterevidenceistobe} ed.^{TheOA proceedsforex-parteHeardtheLd} ^{Applicant.Reservedfor order'} ^{ilewrittennotesofarguments'} ^toto"det
		(KamalDe) Presiding Officer DRT-3,Kolkata

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Ms Shibayya Constructions and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Ms Shibayya Constructions and Anr.

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 Ms Urjaswati Chatterjee

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Amro Fashions and Ors.

Canara Bank versus Ms Anasua Deb

Mrs Sampa Bhattacharjee versus Central Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Sukur Ali and Ors.

Canara Bank versus Ms Anita Poddar