Allowed

Canara Bank v. Neeta Vaman Shettigar

DRT4 Apr 2024OA/72/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 36,64,565.39. The bank proved the loan documents, hypothecation, and default. The Tribunal directed payment within 60 days with potential recovery from mortgaged and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 36,64,565.39 plus contractual interest within 60 days. Recovery from sale of mortgaged and personal assets. Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Canara Bank versus Neeta Vaman Shettigar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

OA 72 of 2023

¶2

Registered on : 16.03.2023 Decided on : 04.04.2024

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 72 of 2023

¶4

CANARA BANK A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 112 JC Road, Bangalore in the State of Karnataka and one of its branch offices amongst other places at Candolim Goa- 403 114 through its Authorised Signatory Shri Gedala Phani Kumar

¶5

…. APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

NEETA VAMAN SHETTIGAR Alias Neeta Vaman Xettigar Prop: M/s. Shania Corner Wine Shop, At: Shop No: 5/232, Umta Waddo, Calangute, Goa- 403 516 Also at: Flat No. Ff 3, Corte Real, Waheeda Complex, Santa Cruz, Tiswadi Goa – 403 005

¶8

… DEFENDANT

¶9

_____________________________________________ Counsel for the Applicant : Adv. Aparna Jagtap i/b Rajput Counsel for the Defendant : Ex- Parte

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

The Original Application has been filed by the Applicant against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 36,64,565.39 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and Paise Thirty Nine

¶12

¶13

OA 72 of 2023

¶14

Only) as claimed at contractual rate from 01.10.2022 till the full realisation of the amount due under the original application.

¶15

Facts as succinctly set out in the present OA are that the Defendant is the proprietor of Shania Corner Wine Shop and is engaged in the business of retail sale of liquor.

¶16

It is stated that Defendant was in need of funds for business, therefore, the Defendant approached the Applicant Bank in the year 2020 and requested for Cash Credit/ WC Loan facility of Rs. 25 Lakh. Pursuant to the said request, Applicant vide sanction letter dated 28.02.2020 sanctioned Cash Credit / WC Loan facility of Rs. 25 Lakh to the Defendant.

¶17

In consideration of sanction of the aforesaid Cash Credit facility, Defendant have hypothecated all stocks, receivables, book debts and other movable assets in favour of the Applicant bank and also executed following loaning and security documents on 28.02.2020:

¶18

i. Letter of Undertaking

¶19

ii. Letter of Proprietorship

¶20

iii. Pronote

¶21

iv. Request for overdraft facilities

¶22

It is further stated that Defendant again approached the Applicant and requested for working Capital Demand Loan of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Pursuant to the said request, Applicant bank vide sanction letter dated 02.05.2020 sanctioned Working Capital Demand Loan of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The said loan was to be repaid in 28 months.

¶23

¶24

OA 72 of 2023

¶25

In consideration of sanction of the aforesaid facility, Defendant have extended charge on hypothecated all stocks, receivables, book debts and other movable assets in favour of the Applicant and also executed following loaning and security documents on 02.05.2020:

¶26

i. Letter of Proprietorship

¶27

ii. Take Delivery Letter

¶28

iii. Pronote

¶29

iv. Agreement Cum Deed of Hypothecation

¶30

In order to further secure the aforesaid facility, defendant deposited original title deeds of the with the Applicant on 18.06.2020 for the property being: All that piece and parcel of shop no. 4 adm: 16.43 sq. mtr. Chalta No. PT Sheet No: 49, H. No: 1/246/D-4, including terrance and undivided rights and title, interest on the ground floor of building known as “Finesse Garden” construction property known as “Xelpem", Village: Duler, Taluka: Bardez, Dist: North Goa, Goa.

¶31

It is further stated that Defendant again requested the Applicant Bank to grant GECL (Guarantee Emergency Credit Line) loan facility of Rs. 4 Lakh. Pursuant to the request made by Defendant, Applicant sanctioned the GECL loan facility of Rs. 4 Lakh. The said loan was to be repaid in 28 months.

¶32

In consideration of sanction of aforesaid facility, Defendant have extended the charge on hypothecated all stocks, receivables, book debts and other movable assets in favour of the Applicant and also executed following loaning and security documents on 06.06.2020:

¶33

i. Letter of Undertaking

¶34

¶35

OA 72 of 2023

¶36

ii. Letter of Proprietorship

¶37

iii. Agreement Cum Deed of Hypothecation

¶38

It is further stated that Defendant failed to non-servicing of the interest of the Defendant, and to save the Defendant account from slipping to NPA, as per the Applicant Bank scheme, Defendant have on 03.09.2020 been facilitated with COVID FITL (Funded Interest Term Loan) of an amount of Rs. 1,24,806/-.

¶39

It is also stated that Defendant has approached the Applicant for the renewal of Cash Credit / WC Loan facility of Rs. 25 Lakh, which has been renewed, by the Applicant on 28.02.2021.

¶40

In consideration of sanction of aforesaid facility, Defendant executed various loaning and security documents which include Letter of Renewal and Cash Credit Agreement in favour of the Applicant against Cash Credit Loan facility.

¶41

It is further stated that Defendant again approached the Applicant Bank and requested for WCTL loan facility of Rs. 15 Lakh (for restructuring the existing liability/ amount of the cash credit loan facility) and FITL loan facility, which has been acceded by the Applicant Bank under sanction letter dated 29.06.2021.

¶42

In consideration of sanction of aforesaid facility, Defendant have extended charge on mortgaged and hypothecated of all stocks, receivables, book debts and other movables assets in favour of the Applicant.

¶43

i. Draft Letter of Undertaking from Guarantor of Restructuring Loan

¶44

¶45

OA 72 of 2023

¶46

ii. Debtor – Creditor Agreement

¶47

iii. Debt Restructuring Agreement

¶48

However, after availing aforesaid various facilities and also restructuring of the account, Defendant failed to repay the outstanding amount as per the contract thus, the account was classified as NPA on 26.03.2022. Thereafter, the Applicant issued recall notice dated 28.03.2022 and called upon the Defendant to repay the outstanding dues, but failed to do so. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶49

Notice was issued to the Defendant. Despite service, none appeared for the Defendant nor any WS has been filed thus, he was proceeded ex-parte vide even date order.

¶50

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed through Authorized Signatory Siddharth Prabhakar.

¶51

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

¶52

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 defendants. 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.

¶53

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

OA 72 of 2023

O R D E R

(i) I allow the present O.A. and direct the Defendant to pay to the Applicant, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs. 36,64,565.39 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and Paise Thirty Nine Only) as claimed at contractual rate from the date of filing of the present OA till its realisation.

¶58

(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged properties, hypothecated goods and assets as well as personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendant.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

File be consigned to record.

¶64

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 04.04.2024 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.

¶65

Tjs/-

¶66

Canara Bank v. Neeta Vaman Shettigar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Neeta Vaman Shettigar

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

Dr Shital Vinay Patil Anr. versus Phonix Arc Private Limited & Ors.

Idbi Bank versus Aman Kamlesh Solanki

Idbi Bank versus Jasmine

Canara Bank versus Suhas Chandrakant Malik

State Bank of India versus Mr Vijaykumar Hiralal

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S M. F. Traders