Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Surya Trading Company

DRT22 May 2024OA/56/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank filed an original application for recovery of dues. The defendants did not appear. The tribunal examined evidence and held the defendants joint and severally liable to pay the principal amount along with interest. The mortgaged properties were ordered sold.

What did the court decide?

The defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 72,92,423.00 with interest and costs; mortgaged properties ordered to be sold; recovery certificate to be issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S Surya Trading Company — Money Laundering | 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.^- 56122

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 3RD Ftoor, Zonat Office, Vijay Nagar, Jabatpur (M.P.) AppIicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Surya Trading Company, 01 ) Proprietor-Govind Das Agrawa[, 24, Bargwan lndustrial Area, Behind Mahakausal Potteries, Katni^(M.P.)

¶8

1. Govind Das Agrawal, S/o Shri Kamta Prasad Agrawal

¶9

1. Smt. Matti Devi Agrawat, W/o Govind Das Agrawal

¶10

Abhinav Agrawat, S/o Govind Das Agrawal

¶11

Madhukar Agrawat, S/o Govind Das Agrawal

¶12

(2 to 5 R/o Sukhsagar Apartment, Near Railway Station, Katni, M.P.; Also at: Kamaniya Gate Gati, Matviya Ganj Ward, Murawar, Katni, M.P.483501 )

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : Shri L.P. Yadav, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Dated : 27"d May,2024)

¶17

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication uls 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 27/12/21 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 72,92,423.00 (Rupees Seventy Two Lac, Ninety Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Twenty Three onty) along with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Defendant No.-2, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 60 La on 24/01 /13 which was lastly

oA56/22

renewed on 22/11/16. On the further request of Defendants the Appticant' Bank deferred the interest on working capital and converted it into FITL in pursuance to Covid-19 Regutatory Package. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facility, the Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor as borrower and Defendant No.-2 to 5 as guarantors in addition to execution of toan and guarantee documents have atso created equitable mortgage over the immovabte properties, i.e.,

¶23

i) Land diverted Kh No.-5l1 lkil A26/4 (Part) N.B. 188, Ptot No.13, PH No.-4512, Vitlage-Tikuri, Katni, admeasuring 2400 sq.ft.; betonging to Defendant No.^-2;

¶24

ii) House Property 3'd Ftoor in Sukh Sagar Apartment situated at Battabh Bhai Ward, Ashok Cotony, P.H. No.-4512, New 43, Div. Kh. No.1497 12, Near Station admearuing 1179.57 sq.ft. (Plot Area 880 sq.ft.); betonging to Defendant No.-2;

¶25

iii) Land P.H. No.-44, New 41 144 N.B. 407, Mauja Khirahni Rafi Ahmad Kidwai Ward Durga Chowk, Katni, admeasuring 1347.60 sq.ft.;betonging to Defendant No.-2. The Defendants avaited the credit facilities and atso executed Revival Letters lastty on 03/01 /19. The account was ctassified as NPA and the Defendants faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legal Notice on 07 110121 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-16 which were proved by Shri Manmohan Anand, Chief Manager.

¶26

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11 101 124. 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 severatty liable to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has claimed interest @10.50%^{p.a. with monthtyrests.However, I feel it fair and reasonabteto} grant interest @10.50% p.a. simpte pendentelite and future titt reatization of the dues. The mortgaged^properties are liable to^{be sold} for^recoveryof amount due along with the^{personalproperties} and assets of the^Defendants.

¶27

The Originat Apptication is attowed and it is ordered as under'

¶28

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty} and severatly^{Rs. 72,92,423.00} (Rupees Seventy Two Lac, Ninety Two Thousand, Four Hundred and^Twenty

¶29

¶30

oA 56122

¶31

Three onty) together with^{pendentetite and future [email protected]%per} annum simpte from the date of^{fiting of the OA, i.e., 77 /12121, with costs} titI its reatization.

¶32

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to^{sell the mortgagedas wetlas} personal properties and assets of the Defendants^{for reatization of its dues.} The Defendants are hereby^{restrained by means of injunctionfrom} depteting, transferring, encumbering,^{atienatingor in any way deating with} their properties/assets without^{first paying the claimof the Applicant Bank'}

¶33

iii) A Recovery Certificate^{be issueduls 19(2Zl of Recovery of} Debts and Bankruptcy Act.^{The appticantbank may fite a memo of cost} within 7 days for^{preparingRecovery Certificate.}

¶34

Judgment^{pronouncedin the open court on this22nd Day of May,2074}

¶35

L1 (Ram Niwas Patet) Presidin Officer

State Bank of India v. M/S Surya Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Surya Trading Company

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

Bank of Baroda versus Ashutosh Pandey

Hdfc Bank versus Veerendra

Hdfc Bank versus Vijay

Ms Laxmi Enterprises through partner Badri Sahu versus Punjab National Bank

Manohar Singh Rajput Son of Late Shri Dansingh Rajput versus Icici Bank Limited

Mohammad Kurshid Ansari versus Axis Bank