Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Paradise Carpets

DRT26 Apr 2024OA/60/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by Bank of Baroda against M/s Paradise Carpets and its proprietor guarantor for outstanding loan dues and interest, ordering joint and several liability and securing dues against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 25,05,506.97 with further simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date; amount secured by charge on mortgaged property; costs awarded to applicant.

Bank of Baroda versus Paradise Carpets — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on:	09/12/2021
Registered on:	30/03/2022
Decided on:	26/04/2024
Duration:	Y. M. D.
	2 – 4 - 18

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 60 of 2022

¶4

Claim : Recovery of Rs. 25,05,506.97 ps

¶5

Bank of Baroda,

¶6

a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act v, 1970 having its local Head Office at Mandavi, Baroda and one of its Branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Aurangabad and acting through its power of Attorney Holder and one of Chief Manager Shri Vishal Raj Gupta, age 32 years occup. service as Chief Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Plot No. 8, Town Centre, Connaught Place N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 60/2022)

¶9

Page 1 of 8

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 M/s Paradise Carpets, Prop. Nilesh Subhash Pandit, age 36 years occup. business Shop No. FF4, First Floor, at Orange Square, Khinvasara Estates, Plot No. 3, Gat No. 176 and 178(P), village Tisgaon Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶12

And Mr Nilesh Subhash Pandit, Proprietor of M/s. Paradise Carpets, age 36 years occup. business Row House No. B-4, Peace Home Society, near Deogiri Valley, Mitmita, Aurangabad

¶13

2 Mr Kishor Subhash Pandit, age 39 years occup. business, Row House No. B-4, Peace Home Society, near Deogiri Valley, Mitmita, Aurangabad And

¶14

Mr Kishor Subhash Pandit Age 39 years occup. business Shop No. FF4, First Floor, at Orange Square, Khinvasara Estates, Plot No. 3, Gat No. 176 and 178(P), village Tisgaon Tal. & …Defendant Dist. Aurangabad

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For Applicant-bank : Mrs. R.R. Yewale, Adv. For Defendants: Absent

¶17

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

¶18

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 60/2022)

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

Pronounced on: 26^th April 2024

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The applicant-bank has filed the present Original Application against defendants for recovery of sum of Rs. 25,05,506.97 ps (Rs. twenty five lakhs five thousand five hundred six and ps ninety seven only) towards outstanding of loan amount availed by them, together with contractual interest till repayment/ realization, and, in default, for sale of mortgaged/hypothecated properties, as described in the Original Application.

¶23

Facts of the case, in short, are that defendant No.1 M/s. Paradise Carpets is a proprietary concern and Mr Nilesh Subhash Pandit is its proprietor, who obtained Term Loan facility of Rs. 18.00 lakhs for purchase of machinery and shop loan and cash credit loan facility of Rs. 7.00 lakhs for working capital requirements for carrying on activity of home furnishings under the name and style of M/s. Paradise Carpets, aggregating to Rs. 25.00 lakhs, on 18/04/2019. Defendant No.2 stood guarantor for

¶24

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 60/2022)

¶25

Page 3 of 8

¶26

repayment of loan by defendant No.1 as well as mortgagor alongwith defendant No.1. Defendants No.1 & 2 executed relevant documents in favour of applicant to secure the loan amounts including Memorandum of Entry dated 29/04/2019 in respect of deposit of title deed of the property owned by Defts. No.1 & 2 i.e. original sale deed No. AGG-5-3185 dated 18/05/2015 in respect of shop No. FF-4 admeasuring 16.09 sq.mtrs, first floor at “Orange Square” at Khinvasara Estates, constructed on plot No. 3 at Gat No. 176 and 178(p) situated at Tisgaon, Aurangabad, belonging to Defts. NO.1 & 2. They have also executed letter of confirmation of Mortgage dated 30/04/2019 confirming creation of equitable mortgage of said property and charge has been noted by Sub-Registrar, Aurangabad vide document No. ARB-6-550 dated 09/05/2019. It is pleaded that the defendants also agreed to pay penal interest @ 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment schedule as agreed. It is pleaded that however, the defendants could not follow the repayment

¶27

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 60/2022)

¶28

Page 4 of 8

¶29

programme and failed to repay it as agreed and thereby the loan account classified as NPA on 31/03/2021 and consequently issued legal demand notice dated 30/09/2021 to which no response is given. Hence this Original Application with prayer for the reliefs sought, as mentioned in para No.1 above.

¶30

Defendants though duly served with summons of the Orig. Application, by hand, vide service affidavit Exh. 9, they preferred to remain absent in the matter and therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against them and right to file written statement by defendants stands closed, vide order dated 15/04/2023.

¶31

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶32

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig. Application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶33

Perused the record. The applicant bank filed evidence on affidavit of Mr Vishal Raj Gupta, Chief Manager (Exh.4) along

¶34

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 60/2022)

¶35

Page 5 of 8

¶36

with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 24 documents,

¶37

which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 24 on behalf of the

¶38

applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against both the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the prayers made therein. Perusal of the documents including entries of deposit of amounts by defendants in statement of account filed shows that the Orig. Application is filed well within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence I hold that both the defendants are liable to pay to applicant bank the claim amount claimed in the Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime long period Covid-Pandeic-19 and costs.

¶39

In the result, the present Orig. Application is allowed with costs, as under:

¶40

(A) Defendants are ordered to pay either jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 25,05,506.97 ps (Rs. twenty five lakhs five thousand five hundred six and ps ninety seven only)

¶41

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 60/2022)

¶42

Page 6 of 8

¶43

alongwith further interest @ 8% p.a., Simple, from the date of filing Orig. Application till repayment/ realization.

¶44

(B) Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Orig. Appln. shall be reduced from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶45

¶46

a ll that piece and parcel of property bearing S hop No. FF-4 admeasuring 16.09 sq.mtrs, first floor at “Orange Square” at Khinvasara Estates, constructed on plot No. 3 at Gat No. 176 and 178(part) situated at Tisgaon, Aurangabad, owned by Defts. No.1 & 2.

¶47

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged/hypothecated property, as described in the Orig. Appln., towards realization of their dues.

¶48

(E) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶49

(F) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the Orig. Application.

¶50

(G) The applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks

(O.A. No. 60/2022)

( Madkar)

Page 7 of 8

from the date of receipt of order.

¶55

(H) The applicant bank to file affidavit before the Recovery Officer about sale of property and appropriation of money in the loan account under the securitization, if any, before issuance of demand notice.

¶56

(I) Copy of order be sent to the Recovery Officer.

¶57

(J) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶58

Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶59

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 26/04/2024 Aurangabad

¶60

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 60/2022)

¶61

Page 8 of 8

Bank of Baroda v. Paradise Carpets

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Paradise Carpets

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Irfan Chand Mahebub Pathan

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Limbaji Vishwanath Ghuge

State Bank of India versus Kidzee Preschool

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Bansi Kisan Turkane

Shri Snehalchandra Nandkishore Salgarkar versus State Bank of India

Vinod Madhukar Bombale versus Shri. Chhatrapati Rajshri Shahu Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.