Allowed

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo

DRT18 Jan 2024OA/672/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bank's application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 47,48,254 from the borrower and guarantor, granting interest at 9% p.a. and restricting disposal of assets until dues are paid.

What did the court decide?

Direct order to repay Rs. 47,48,254 with interest; injunction against transfer of assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Santosh Kumar Sahoo — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL: JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'ble Shri Ram Niwas Patel)

¶4

Original Application No. - 672122

¶5

lDBl Bank Ltd., Bhitaj, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Santosh Kumar Sahoo, 5/o Shri Makhan Sahoo, Vittage-Khapri, Post-Barhapur, Tehsil-Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G. ) a91331 ; Also at: Vittage-Kanaharpuri, Tehsit-Dhamdha, Djstrict- Durg (C.G.) 491 331

¶8

Shri Bataram Kaware, S/o Shri Ankatram Kaware, Vittage-Khapri, Post'Barhapur, Tehsil-Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.) 491331 ..... Defendants

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Shri Jagbandan^{Patel, Advocate} Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶10

JUDGMENT lDated^{: i8s January,zo24l}

¶11

The Applicant-Bank has fited^{the present OriginalApplication} u/s 19 of Recovery of^{Debts and Bankruptcy Acl on 27105122against the} Defendants for recoYery of^{Rs. 47,48,254.00(Rupees FourtySevenLac,} Fourty Eight Thousand,^{Two Hundredand FiftyFour onty)alongwith interest} and other retiefs as stated.

¶12

The brief facts of the^{caseare that on the request of} Defendant No.-l, the AppLicant^{Banksanctioned Kisan Cash Credit (KCC)} Limit of Rs. 36.34 Lac^{on21l'11114 and Fundedlnterest Term Loan (FITL) of} Rs. 4,54,2401'as^{per Covid'19 regutatorypackage issuedby the Reserve} Bank of tndia. ln^{considerationof the sanction of credit facititiesthe} Defendant No.-1 as^{borrowerand Defendant No.-2as guarantor in addition} to execution of^{Loan and guarantee documentshave atso created charge} under the^{provisionsof M.P. Krishi Udhar PravartanTatha Prakriyan Upbandh}

¶13

¶14

oA 672122

¶15

(Bank) Adhiniyam 1972 ovet the immovabte Properties^{of DefendantNo.-'1,} i. e., i) Agriculture Land Survey No.-42^{area 0.670 hect;65 area1'150} hect.;324t1 area 0.400 hect.; 325^{area 0.740hect; 328 area 0.940hect.,} totat area 3.900 hectare, situated^{at Vitlage-Kanharpuri, PatwariHatkaNo.-} 10/'11, Tehsil-Dhamdha, District-Durg^(C.G.);

¶16

ii) Agricutture Land Survey No.-27l3 area 0.23^{hect; 35/2area} 0.16 hect.; 644 area 0.37 hect., total^{area 0.76 hectare, situated at Vittage'} Kanharpuri, Patwari Hatka No.'10, Tehsil-Dhamdha,^{District'Durg(C.G')} The Defendant No.-1 availed the credit facitities^{and also executed} Acknowtedgment of Debt cum Revival Letters tastty on^{'12111121.The} accounts became irregutar and the Defendants faited to^tiquidatethe outstanding dues despite issuance of Notices^lastty on^01/09/21and 20110121 by the Appticant Bank. The Applicant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-'l'l which were^proved by Shri Debtanu Sengupta, DGM and Branch Head.

¶17

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fjled written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23109/ZZ. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieye the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty tiable to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest at contractual rate with monthly rests. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @9.00% p.a. simpte pendentelite and future tilt reatization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due along with the personat properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶18

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

¶19

i) The oefendants do pay^jointly and severatty Rs. 47,48,254.00 (Rupees Fourty Seven Lac, Fourty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Four onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @9.00% per annum simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e.,27105122, with costs titt its reatization.

¶20

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to setl the mortgaged as well as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from

¶21

¶22

oA 672/22

¶23

depteting, transferring, encumbering,^{atienatingor in any way dealingwith} thejr properties/assets without^{first paying the ctaim of the AppticantBank.}

¶24

iii) A Recovery Certificate be^{issued uls'19(22]. of Recovery of} Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The^{appticant bank may fite a memo of cost} within 7 days for^{preparingRecoveryCertificate.}

¶25

Judgment pronounced in the^{open courton this 18th Day of January, 2024.}

¶26

\9
( Niwas Patet)
Presidine Officer

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ashok Kumar Tarachandani

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Kushal Ram S/O Mangli Ram

Santosh Motwani versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Bhaiyalal Panwar versus Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Mukesh Chouksey

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shree Mukambika Mobile Prop-Shri Lokesh Verma