Allowed

State Bank of India v. Uma Devi Jaiswal

DRT1 Oct 2024OA/776/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant Bank's Originel Application for recovery of Rs. 1.12 crore from the defendant, directed payment with simple interest on specific components, enforced repayment via auction of mortgaged and personal assets, and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 1.12 crore with simple interest at assessed rates; permission to sell mortgaged and personal assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 19(7) of RDB Act; injunction ag

State Bank of India versus Uma Devi Jaiswal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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

Originol Application No, - 776122

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Btock B-1, Pujari Chambers, Near Pachpedinaka, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G. )

¶6

..... Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Uma Devi Jaiswal, W/o Shri Ramchandra Jaiswat, Prop. Of M/s Maa Durga Wire, (a) 23 Part, lndustrial Area, Rawabhata, Raipur 9C.G.) 492001; (b) Ftat No. A-501, A.T. Ctassic, V.l.P. Estate, Khamardih, Near Ashoka Ratna, Raipur (C.G.l 497007; (C) d-18, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)492001 Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Akhitesh Choubey, Advocate

¶10

Defendant : Ex-parte

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

(Dated : 01't October, 2024)

¶13

The Applicant-Bank has fited the present Originat Application u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 08106/2? against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,12,86,106.00 (Rupees One Crore, Twetve Lac, Eighty Six Thousand, One Hundred and Six onty) along with interest and other reliefs as stated.

¶14

Z. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant as Proprietor of M/s Maa Durga Wire, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 10 Lac and Term Loan of Rs. 10 tac aggregating Rs. 20 Lac on 08/02/08 and on the request of the Defendant the credit facitities were renewed/enhanced from time to time and finatty the Appticant-Bank sanctioned/restructured/renewed the cash credit timit to Rs. 15 Lac, Working Capital Term Loan to Rs. 67 Lac, FITL-1 to Rs. 8 [ac and GECL of Rs. 15.96 Lac aggregating Rs. 105.96 Lac on 31 /03121 . ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant in addition to execution of loan and guarantee documents has atso created equitabte

¶15

¶16

oA776122

¶17

mortgage over^{the immovableProperty, i'e'' Alt Part and Parcelof} Land/BuitdingatPtotNo.-23Part,lndustriatArea'MouzaRawabhata'Tehsil andDistrict-Raipur(C.G.)area6000sq.ft.TheDefendantavailedthecredit facitities and^{also executedBatanceConfirmationLetter on 31/03/21but} faited to tiquidate^{the outstandingdues despiteissuanceof Legal Noticeon} lltOZl72 by^{the AppticantBank.TheAppticant-Bank has relied upon the} documents at^{Ex. A-1 to A-33whichwere proved by Shri shantanuDasgupta,} Chief Manager.

¶18

Despite service^{of notice,the Defendantneitherappeared nor} fited written statement.^{She was proceeded ex-partevide order dated} lOl04/24, There is^{therefore,no reasonto disbetieve the contentionsof the} Bank. considering^{the facts of the case, I opinethat the Defendant is tiabte} topaytheclaimamounttogetherwithinterestandcosts.TheAppticant. Bank in its apptication^{has ctaimedinterest @8.20% p.a. with monthly rests} in cash credit account,^{interest @7.20%p.a. with monthty rests in working} capital term loan account,^{[email protected]"p.a. with monthlyrests in GECL} account and interest @6.70y"^{p.a. with monthtyrests in FITL account,} However, I feet it fair^{and reasonabte to grant [email protected]%p.a.simpte in} cash credit account,^{[email protected]"p.a. simpte in workingcapitalterm} loan account and GECL^{accountand interest @6.70% p.a. simplein FITL} account^{pendentetite and future titt reatizationof the dues.The mortgaged} property is l.iabte to be sotd for^{recovery of amount due atongwith the} personal properties and assets of the^Defendant.

¶19

The Originat Apptication^{is altowed and it is orderedas under-}

¶20

i) The Defendant do^pay Rs.^{1,12,86,106.00(RupeesOne Crore,} Twelve Lac, Eighty Six Thousand,^{OneHundred and Six onty) together with} pendentetite and future interest @8.20%^{p.a.simpte in cash credit account,} interest @7.20%^p.a. simple^{in workingcapitalterm toan account and GECL} account and interest @6.70%^{p.a. simptein FITL account from the date of} fiting of the OA, i.e.,08106122'^{with costs tilt its reatization.}

¶21

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled^{to setl the mortgagedas we[[as} personal properties and assets of the^{Defendantfor reatization of its dues.} The Defendant is hereby^{restrained by means of injunction from depteting,} transferring, encumbering,^{alienating or in any way deatingwith her} properties/assets without first^{paying the claim of the AppticantBank'}

¶22

¶23

oA776122

¶24

iii) A Recovery Certificate^{be issueduts 19(72)of Recoveryof} Debts and^{BankruptcyAct. The appticantbank may fite a memo of cost} within 7 days for^{preparingRecovery Certificate.}

¶25

Judgment^{pronouncedin the open court on this 01't Day of October,2024'}

¶26

0'
N Patet)
Presi dine icer

State Bank of India v. Uma Devi Jaiswal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Uma Devi Jaiswal

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

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/s U.K Enterprises

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Sanman Singh

Bank of India versus Ms Saanvi Enterprises

Bank of India versus Soumiya Agency

Idbi Bank versus Sarla Singh Borkar

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shri Wire Industries