Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Apna Hospital

DRT8 Feb 2024OA/588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of approximately Rs. 2.84 crores, including interest, against the borrowers and guarantors of M/s Apna Hospital. The court rejected the defense regarding non-disbursement and authorized recovery from mortgaged and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.2,84,04,923.20p with interest and costs; sale of mortgaged properties; joint and several liability.

State Bank of India versus M/S Apna Hospital — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 588 of 2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 15.03.2022 Date of Decision: 08.02.2024

¶5

SBI, local head office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and having its branch amongst other places at The Mall, Shimla, 171001 (Himachal Pradesh) and SME Branch Panthaghati, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) 171001 and one of the Specialized Branch known as STreessed Assets Recovery Branch, at #40, SDA Commercial Complex, Zonal Office Building, Kasumpti, Shimla, 171009.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Apna Hospital, a Partnership Firm at Village Jangal Brans, NH 21, Ghagus, Post Office Binola, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh) 174001, through its partners Sh. Nand Lal Naundal S/o Sh. Sant Ram Kaundal and Smt. Tara Kaundal W/o Sh. Nand Lal Kaundal.

¶9

Sh. Nand Lal Kaundal S/o Sh. Sant Ram Kaundal, partners of M/s Apna Hospital, R/o Gupta Niwas, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) 171001.

¶10

Smt. Tara Kaundal W/o Sh. Nand Lal Kaundal, partner of M/s Apna Hospital, R/o Gupta Niwas, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) 174001.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶14

Sh. V. K. Diwan, Counsel for defendants.

¶15

OA for the Recovery of Rs.2,84,04,923.20p with interest from 11.03.2022.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.2,84,04,923.20p with interest against M/s Apna Hospital And Another (defendants).

¶18

Bank’s case is that on 05.03.2019, it had granted Term loan of

¶19

Rs.250.00 lacs to defendant no.1 firm through its partners defendant

¶20

¶21

nos.2 and 3 for business purpose. Defendant nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. To secure the loan, Defendant no.2 had mortgaged his immovable properties (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.30% per annum with monthly rests.

¶22

2(a). Thereafter, on 31.12.2020, bank had granted Term Loan (GECL) of Rs.40.00 lacs to defendant no.1 firm through its partners defendant nos.2 and 3. Defendant nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors to the said credit facility. The said loan facility was chargeable to interest @7.40% per annum with monthly rests. On 10.03.2022, a sum of Rs.2,84,04,923.20p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶23

On 07.011.2022, defendants filed written statement, wherein they alleged that the application is not maintainable; defendants are not liable in any capacity whatsoever, as the facility was not fully disbursed to them and also failed to release the funds withhold by them despite several representations; incorrect averments have been alleged in the application; the accounts of the defendants was wrongly classified as NPA and wrongly issued notice dated 25.05.2021 U/s 13(2) of Securitization Act; the amount claimed by the applicant bank is highly excessive; applicant bank failed to disburse the loan amount of Rs.20.22 lacs withhold by bank and also praying to the bank to sanction loan amount of Rs.68.80 lacs under ECLGS 1.0 (extension) Scheme to complete the hospital project.

¶24

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Dawa Tashi Kinner, Assistant General Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-17.

¶25

¶26

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶27

The admitted facts are that vide sanction letter dated 05.03.2019, defendants were sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.2.50 crores, which was repayable in 120 monthly installments, with a moratorium of one year. As per the sanction letter, the project should have been completed by 31.03.2020. Defendants failed to pay interest during moratorium period and also failed to pay principal plus interest after moratorium period. There is no force in the contention of the defendants that due to nondisbursement of the loan, the project suffered. As per the defendants, bank did not disburse them a sum of Rs.20.00 lacs (approximately). However, it is admitted by them that they sanctioned Rs.40.00 lacs under ECLGS Scheme. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.290.00 lacs {Rs.250.00 lacs as Term Loan and Rs.40.00 lacs as Term Loan (GECL)} and on 10.03.2022, a sum of Rs.2,84,04,923.20p was due i.e. Rs.2,42,60,322.29p in Term Loan and Rs.41,44,600.91p in Term Loan (GECL).

¶28

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.2,84,04,923.20p (Rupees Two Crore Eighty-Four Lacs Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Three And Paisa Twenty Only) with interest @8.85% per annum with monthly rests in Term Loan Facility and @7.40% per annum with monthly rests in Term Loan (GECL) from 11.03.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged immovable properties, fully detailed in para No.3A of the application, as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶29

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶30

¶31

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 10. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 11.03.2024 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage properties, as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 11. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 08.02.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S Apna Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Apna Hospital

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 India versus M/S Laxmi Body Garage and Others

State Bank of India versus Ms Queens Attire

Bank of India versus M/S Pragati Enterprises and Others

Bank of Baroda versus Kailashben

State Bank of India versus M/s Sahu Bhandar and Others

State Bank of India versus M/s Anand Drug Enterprises and Others