Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Food Box the Official Home Food

DRT26 Feb 2024OA/577/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debtor failed to repay a sanctioned cash credit loan of Rs. 30 lakhs. The bank averred the account became NPA and issued a legal notice. The Tribunal, proceeding ex parte, allowed the original application for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 30,30,068.68 plus 11.55% p.a. interest within 60 days; recovery from assets and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Food Box the Official… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

O. A. No. 577 of 2022

¶2

Registered on : 30.09.2022 Decided on : 26.02.2024

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 577 of 2022

¶4

UNION BANK OF INDIA, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021, and one of the its Branch Office amongst others known as at Union Bank of India, Home Street Branch, Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001, Maharashtra. Through its chief branch manager Mr. Vinod Upadhyay.

¶5

...APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Food Box the Official Home Food, Mr. Avinash Gopichand Hassani (Proprietor), Shop No. 7, Perin Nariman Street, Bazargate, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400001.

¶8

...DEFENDANT

¶9

_____________________________________________ Counsel for the Applicant : Advocate B. N. Joshi i/b Adv. Ananadkumar Singh.

¶10

Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-Parte

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

The present OA has been filed by the Applicant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,30,068.68 (Rupees Thirty Lakh Thirty Thousand Sixty Eight Thousand Sixty Eight and Paisa Sixty Eight only) with further

¶13

¶14

O. A. No. 577 of 2022

¶15

interest thereon at the rate of 11.55% p.a. monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization.

¶16

Facts as succinctly set out in the OA are that Defendant approached the Applicant for grant of Cash Credit Loan for the purpose of Business and the same is sanctioned of Rs.30,00,000/-vide sanction letter dt.05.02.2019 which were duly accepted to repayable in 360 instalment to the Applicant.

¶17

In order to secure the aforesaid said Cash Credit facility the Defendants the following document in favour of the Applicant Bank:-

¶18

a. D.P. Note dt.05.02.2019 for Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶19

b. Letter of continuity dt.05.02.2019.

¶20

c. Interest Agreement dt.05.02.2019.

¶21

d. Conducting Agreement dt.16.01.2019.

¶22

e. Hypothecation Agreement of Goods & Debts dt.05.02.2019.

¶23

f. Letter of Undertaking not Alienate Hypothecated Goods dt.05.02.2019.

¶24

However, after availing the said Home Loan Facility, the Defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Sanction of aforesaid Credit Facility and neglected to make the payment to the Applicant bank. Therefore, the account was declared as NPA on 31.01.2020 and further the Applicant issued the Legal Notice dt.30.12.2020 called upon the Defendant to make the payment of the outstanding dues but the Defendants failed to pay the dues. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶25

¶26

O. A. No. 577 of 2022

¶27

Notices were issued to the Defendant. Despite service, none appeared for the Defendant nor filed the WS thus, they were proceeded exparte on 21.12.2023.

¶28

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed on 25.10.2023 through the Branch Manager Mr. Rajiv Kumar Srivastav.

¶29

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record.

¶30

The witness of the Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant Bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the Defendant. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the Applicant Bank and the Applicant Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶31

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed against the Defendant.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(i) I allow the present OA and direct the Defendant to pay to the Applicant Bank, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs. 30,30,068.68 (Rupees Thirty Lakh Thirty Thousand Sixty Eight Thousand Sixty Eight and Paisa Sixty Eight only) with further

¶34

¶35

O. A. No. 577 of 2022

¶36

interest thereon at the rate of 11.55% p.a. monthly rests from the date of filing of the present OA till its realization.

¶37

(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendant.

¶38

(iii) Defendant is hereby directed not to deal with his properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶39

(iv) Defendant shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶40

(v) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶41

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record.

¶42

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 26.02.2024 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai

¶43

SP/-

¶44

Union Bank of India v. Food Box the Official Home Food

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Food Box the Official Home Food

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sadhana Bharat Rai

Bank of Baroda versus Her Complete Women

Nandakishore Soma Dhavade versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Sushila Jaya Pujary versus L and T Finance Limited

Idbi Bank versus Mr Shailesh Ambalal Patel

Idbi Bank versus Minal