Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Palak Electronics and Mobile Shopee Prop. Mrs. Nikita Vikas Parakh

DRT19 Sept 2024OA/800/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank’s application for recovery of dues from a defaulting proprietor. The court reduced the claim by deducting unsupported penal interest and charges, set future interest at 9% per annum, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.31,10,654/- with future interest at 9% p.a. from 21.05.2022; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Punjab National Bank versus Palak Electronics and Mobile… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 21.05.2022 Registered on: 29.08.2022 Decided on: 19.09.2024 Duration: Y M D 02 03 28

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.800/2022.

¶3

Punjab National Bank ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1970 having its Registered Office at Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 and amongst others one of its branch at Satara Road, Pune.

¶5

Versus Palak Electronics & Mobile Shopee Through its Proprietor, Mrs. Nikita Vikas Parakh Shop No.7, City Survey No.42/1, Avdhoot Arcade, Dattanagar, Katraj, Pune-411 046.

… Applicant

…Defendant

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant Advocate –M.V.Kini & Co. For the Defendants Ex parte

¶10

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.33,78,776/-

(OA No.800/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 19^th September, 2024)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.33,78,776/i.e.Rs.28,51,784/towards Cash Credit Account No.2901008700002575 with future interest @10.50% per annum and Rs.5,26,992/- on account of Term Loan Account No.290100IB00010909 with future interest @11.00% per annum from 21.05.2022 till repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶17

Defendant approached to the Applicant Bank and requested for Cash Credit Facilities of Rs.15,00,000/- and Term Loan Facility of Rs.3,75,000/-. The Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 12.08.2015, granted the said Loan facilities to the defendant.

¶18

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facilities, defendant has executed loan and security documents as set out in Para Nos.5.6 of the Original Application, in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶19

In addition to this, defendant has executed Hypothecation of Goods and Book Debts to secure Cash

(OA No.800/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

Credit Facility and Hypothecation of Assets to secure Term Loan Facility dated 25.08.2015, of various raw materials viz manufacturing material, raw materials including excisable raw materials, stocks in process, semi-finished goods, finished goods (including bought out finished goods) and book debts, outstanding decrees, money receivables, Government subsidies, claims, bill contracts and investments etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The Applicant Bank contended that the defendant has committed defaults in payment of installments in accounts as per the terms of sanction. Hence, the account of Defendant with the Applicant Bank has become NonPerforming Asset on 30.09.2017. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank issued Legal Notice dated 18.05.2022 calling upon him to pay the entire outstanding dues, but defendant failed to repay the loan amount.

¶25

Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 31.01.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Shrikant Kohad and has produced on record the

(OA No.800/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

Original Loan Transaction documents at Exhibits.AW-1 to AW-14, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶32

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the Applicant Bank.

¶33

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs claimed.

¶34

The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶35

The Applicant Bank has claimed penal interest of Rs.1,91,49/- and other charges of Rs.31,884/- for Cash Credit Facility-I so also penal interest of Rs.34,531/- and other charges of Rs.10,558/- for Term Loan II Facility, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.33,78,776/- is reduced to Rs.31,10,654/ -.

¶36

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.50% p.a. for Cash Credit Account and @11.00% p.a., for Term

(OA No.800/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

Loan Account. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶41

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶42

ORDER (A) Original Application No.800/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶43

(B) Defendant shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs.31,10,654/- Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Ten Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four only] i.e. Rs.26,28,751/- towards Cash Credit Facility and Rs.4,81,903/- towards Term Loan Account, with future interest @ 9% per annum (Simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.21.05.2022 till payment / realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order, to the Applicant Bank.

¶44

¶45

(D) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the Applicant Bank and the defendant.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer, Date: 19.09.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶48

(OA No.800/2022)

¶49

Page 5 of 5

¶50

[ANIL]

Punjab National Bank v. Palak Electronics and Mobile Shopee Prop. Mrs. Nikita Vikas Parakh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Palak Electronics and Mobile Shopee Prop. Mrs. Nikita Vikas Parakh

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 Bhausaheb Rayate

Bank of India versus Sampat Neharkar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Umang Bharatbhushan Madan

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Rajkumari Ashok Jhosi, Prop. M/S. Raj Enterprises

Bank of Baroda versus Sunita Dhaigude

Union Bank of India versus Maya Kale