Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ravindra Kumar Baghel S/O- Kamar Singh Baghel

DRT2 Apr 2024OA/973/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a Section 19 application filed by SBI for recovery of stake in a Non-Performing Asset. The court decreed the claim against the borrower and guarantors for the principal amount, future interest at 11%, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate under Section 19(2) on a default by the Defendants. The court also granted an injunction against disposal of mortgaged and per

What did the court decide?

Decree for payment of Rs. 29,72,754 along with interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; injunction against alienation of properties.

State Bank of India versus Ravindra Kumar Baghel S/O- Kamar… — Banking and Recovery | 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

OriginoL Applicotion No. 973122

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets RecoYery Branch, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, lndore (M.P.)452003

¶6

.. Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Ravindra Kumar Baghet, S/o Shri Kamar Singh Baghet, Vittage-Mehgaon, Post-Sanchi, Tehsil & Distt.-Raisen (M.P.) 464551

¶9

1. Shri Sudeep Baghet, 5/o Shri Govind Singh BagheL

¶10

Shri Pradeep Baghet, S/o Shri Govind Singh BagheL

¶11

(2 & 3 Vittage-Tajpur Soor, Post- Mehgaon, Tehsit & Distt.-Raisen, M.P. 46455'l)

¶12

..... Defendants

¶13

Counset for the Appticant : Shri Jagbandan Patet, Advocate

¶14

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT 1^{oatei : o} i-lp^{ri t, zo za} I

¶16

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^present Original Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 06/08/22 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 29,72,754.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lac, Seyenty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Four onl.y) 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 AppLicant Bank sanctioned Agricutture Cash Credit (KCC) Limit of Rs. 8.93 Lac on 02/06/14 which was revised to Rs. 8.11 Lac on 28/02120 undet Rin Mafi Yojna announced by the M.P. Government and Agricutture Term Loan (ATL) of Rs. 14.50 Lac on 24/08115. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant No.-1 as borrower and Defendant No.-2 & 3 as guarantors in addition to execution of loan and

¶18

¶19

oA973122

¶20

guarantee documents have atso created charge under the provisions of M.P. Krishi Udhar Pravartan Tatha Prakriyan Upbandh^{(Bank)Adhinjyam1972ovet} the immovabte^property, i.e., Agricutture^{tand SurveyNo.-89,area 9.271} hectare, situated in Vittage-Mehgaon, Patwari Circte No.-3, Tehsit &^Djstrict' Raisen (M.P.), Rin Pustika No.-10159311; betonging to Defendant^No.-1.The Defendant No.-'l hypothecated Combine Haryester malkit^{997bearingChassis} No.-MHM-4'18996, Engine No.^{-4,{AT9971-15207} in favour of the Bank. The Defendant No.-1 ayai(ed the credit facitities and atso executed ReviYat Letters lastty on 20107121. The accounts became irregutar and the Defendants faited to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legal Notice on 13107/ZZ by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-18 which were^proved by Shri Sanjay Mehta, Chief Manager.

¶21

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fjled written statement. They were^proceeded ex"parte^yide order dated 12104/23. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatly tiable to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Applicant-Bank in its applicatjon has ctaimed interest at contractual rate but has not specified the rate of interest. However, I fee[ it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @1'l%^p.a. simple^pendentetite and future titt realization of the dues. The mortgaged^property is tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the^{personal propertiesand} assets of the Defendants.

¶22

The Originat Application is atlowed and it is ordered as under'

¶23

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty} and severatly Rs.29,72,754.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lac, Seventy Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Four onty) together with^pendentetite and future interest @11% Per^annum simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e,,06108/22,^{with coststitt jts} reatization.

¶24

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to setl the mortgaged^{as wetl as} personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization^{of its dues.} The Defendants are hereby^restrained by^{means of injunctionfrom} depLeting, transferring, encumbering,^{atienatingor in anyway deating with} their properties/assets without first^{paying the claimof the AppticantBank.}

oA973122

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

¶29

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this^{02nd Day of Aprit,2024.}

¶30

?- t '
( Patet)
Presidine 0fficer

State Bank of India v. Ravindra Kumar Baghel S/O- Kamar Singh Baghel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ravindra Kumar Baghel S/O- Kamar Singh Baghel

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

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Shweta Dubey Gotia W/O- Ram Dubey Gotiia

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shri Aalok

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kity Fashion

Icici Bank Limited versus Tiwari Coach Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Prabhat Agro Industries and Trading Company versus Capri Global capital Ltd.

Gagan Kumar Bagla versus Bajaj Finance Ltd.