Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Shyam Manohar Pachori

DRT5 Jun 2024OA/922/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal awarded the applicants bank's petition for recovery of dues from the respondents under s. 19 of the RDB Act. The Defendants were ordered to pay the outstanding amounts along with interest at 10% p.a., and a recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 52,08,881.74 (KCC) and Rs. 1,52,514.65 (Car Loans) with interest at 10% p.a. from 29/7/22. Recovery certificate issued under s. 19(22).

Idbi Bank versus Shyam Manohar Pachori — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Original Applicotion No. - 922t22

¶5

lDBl Bank Ltd., Vijay Nagar, Jabatpur

¶6

... Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Shri Shyam Manohar Pachouri, S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Pachouri

¶9

0Z) Smt. Ataknanda Pachouri, W/o Shri Shyam Manohar Pachouri

¶10

(Both at House No.-1313, Wright Town, 'Pachouri House', Jabatpur, M.P. 482001; Atso at: Vittage-Amarpur, Post-Khairi, Tehsit-Patan, Distt.^-Jabatpur 4831 1 3)

¶11

..... Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Jagbandan Patet, Advocate

¶13

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Dated : 05th June, 20241

¶16

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 29107122 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 53,61,396.39 (Rupees Fifty Three Lac, Sixty One Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Six and Paisa Thirty Nine onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Auto Loan of Rs. 7 Lac on 29106116, Auto Loan of Rs. 6 Lac on09l1zl16and KCC Loan of Rs. 36 Lac on 31/07/17. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant No.-1 as borrower and Defendant No.-2 as guarantor for Kcc Limit in addition to execution of [oan and guarantee documents have also created charge/mortgage over the immovabte property, i.e., Agricutture Land bearing survey No.-18l3 area 0.16 hectare and survey No.-1 9 area 7.12 hectare, total area 7.28 hectare, situated in Vittage-Maiti, Satibada, patwari Hatka No.-09, Rl Pipariyakata (01), Tehsit-shahpura, District-Jabatpur (Mp); betonging to Defendant No.-1 The Defendant No.-1 purchased Maruti Swift Dzire (VDl) bearing Registration No.-MPhOCF17674 and Swift Dzire (VDl)

¶18

¶19

oA922122

¶20

bearing Engine^{No.-D13A'2958736whichwere further hypothecatedit in} favour of the^{Appticant-Bank.The Defendant No.'1 avaitedthe credit} facitities but did^{not maintainfinancial disciptine.The accounts were} catssified as^{NpA and the Defendantsfaited to tiquidate the outstandingdues} despite issuance^{of RecattNotice on 30/06/27 by the AppticantBank'The} Appticant-Bank^{has retied upon the documentsat Ex. A'1 to A-20 which were} proved by Shri Mohit^{Manohar Sinha, Regional Head'}

¶21

Despite service^{of notice,the Defendantsneitherappeared nor} f.ited written^{statement. Theywereproceededex-parte vide order dated} 19t01l24.^{Consideringthe factsof the case,I opine that the Defendantsare} jointty and severatty tiabte^{to pay the claim amount togetherwith interest} and costs. Admittedty^{Defendant No.'2 has executed guarantee to secure the} KCC Limit onty^{and thereforeher tiabitityis restrictedto the dues in theKCC} Limit account.^{The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimedinterestat} contractual rate.^{However, ] feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest} @10%^{p.a. in car loanaccountsand KCCaccount simpte pendentetiteand} future titt^{reatizationof the dues. The mortgaged propertyand} hypothecated^{Maruti swift Dzire (vDl) bearing RegistrationNo.-MP2oCF17674} and swift Dzire^{(vDl) bearingEngine No.-D13A-2958736are tiabte to be sotd} for recovery^{of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of} the Defendants.

¶22

The originat^{Appticationis attowed and it is orderedas under-}

¶23

i) The Defendant^{No.-1 and 2 do pay jointtyand severatty Rs'} 52,08,881.74^{(Rupees Fifty Two Lac, Eight Thousand,Eight HundredEighty} one and^{Paisa seventyFour onty) due in KCC loan account and Defendant} No..1 do further^{pay Rs. 1,52,514.65(Rupeesone Lac, Fifty Two Thousand,} Five Hundred^{Fourteenand paisa Sixty Five onty) due in car loan accounts} together^{with pendentetite and future interest@10% per annum simptefrom} the date^{of fiting of the oA, i.e. ,79t07t22, with costs titt its reatization'}

¶24

ii)TheAppt.icantBankisentittedtosettthemortgagedand hypothecated^{Maruti swift Dzire (vDl) bearing RegistrationNo'-MP20GF 17674} and swift^{Dzire (vDl) bearing Engine No"D13A-2958736 as wett as personal} properties^{and assets of the Defendantsfor reatization of its dues' The} Defendants^{are hereby restrainedby means of injunctionfrom depteting'}

¶25

¶26

oA 922122

¶27

transferring,^{encumbering,atienating or in any way deating with their} properties/assets^{without first paying the ctaim of the AppticantBank'}

¶28

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

¶29

Judgment^{pronouncedin the open court on this 05th Day of June, 2074'}

¶30

b(
,'
(Ram Niwas Patet)
Presidine Officer

Idbi Bank v. Shyam Manohar Pachori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Shyam Manohar Pachori

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

Shri Sanjay Awasthi versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Rajendra Singh Rajput versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Ltd.

Smt Abbu Wo Shri Genda Lal versus Uco Bank

Sudarshan Deco Pvt. Ltd. versus Icici Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Shyam Hare Sahu S/O Bhijram Sahu

Ms Goyal Metallics Private Limited versus Union Bank of India