Disposed

Dineshkumar Murlidhar Inani v. Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank

DRT7 Jun 2024SA/383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application, the DRT Aurangabad found that the borrower defrauded the bank by diverting funds without intent to utilize them for specific purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal discharged the applicants' personal guarantees and disposed of the application citing NCLT moratorium.

What did the court decide?

Personal guarantees of applicants discharged; Securitisation Application disposed off.

Dineshkumar Murlidhar Inani versus Poornawadi Nagrik… — Service and Employment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶2

0 S	7.06.2 r. No.	024 01 SA No.383/2023
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.383/2023 Dineshkumar Murlidhar Inani ..Applicant Versus Poornawadi Nagarik Bank ..Respondent Mr. A.D. Soman - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.R. Vakil - Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Dineshkumar Murlidhar Inani, Applicant present in person. Mr. Pralhad Ambadas Rajurikar, AO for the respondent bank present. The matter is taken through Hybrid.
		1. This is a Securitisation Application filed by the applicants praying for quashing securitization action alongwith the prayer of discharge of the guarantee on variance as per the Contract Act. 2. With consent of the parties the matter is being taken for hearing.
		3. Arguments heard. 4. The main contention of the applicants herein is that the loan which was granted as Working Capital Term Loan was for Trading in Sugar, Jaggery and related products. It has been shows that the amount has been transferred to the sister concern without any monitoring specially to the respondent no.4.

¶3

[SBJ (SA No.383/2023) Page 1 of 3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶5

ORDER SHEET

¶6

It is submitted that the respondent no.4 which is sister concern of the borrower alongwith the partners of the borrower firm has manipulated the funds being given to them by the bank and have to utilise this transaction to purchase the assets. It is clarified that the money was utilized to get the other borrowers property released from the charge of the ARC by making the payments.

¶7

It is a duty of the bankers to ensure the end use the fund given by them but in the present case it has been vehemently argued that though the bankers were vigilant but according to the applicant herein the borrowers i.e. Mahalaxmi Trading Company has played fraud not only with the applicants but also with the bank.

¶8

After going through the entire statement of account, pleadings and hearing the arguments, the Tribunal is convinced that the borrower has played fraud not only with the applicants but also with the bankers and have caught the bank unaware of their transactions.

¶9

The Tribunal is reaching to this conclusion because the transactions have taken place in very short span of one week or two weeks therefore from the day one the intention of the borrower was to cheat and not to utilize the funds for the purpose for which the loan was taken. Being a Co-operative Bank the respondent bank was not able to get the real intentions as they relied upon the statements and the documents provided by the respondents herein.

¶10

[SBJ (SA No.383/2023) Page 2 of 3

¶11

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶12

ORDER SHEET

¶13

9. Having come to the said conclusion as fraud vitiates
everything and as per the Contract Act also the
guarantors have to be discharged as there is
manipulation in utilization of the funds and has not been properly and diligently utilized for purchase of the sugar, jiggery and allied products. The bank despite vigilant could not get any smell of bad intentions of the borrower therefore they could not be faulted with.
10. In these circumstances as prayed in Prayer-2(D) the guarantors stand discharged and their personal guarantee
stands discharged. The Securitisation Application
No.383/2023 stands disposed off in view of the above and the moratorium being imposed by the NCLT.
11. In view of the above, I pass the following order. ORDER
A. The Securitisation Application No.383/2023 stands disposed off in view of the above and the moratorium being imposed by the NCLT.
B. It is made clear that only the personal guarantees of the applicants is hereby discharged.
C. Accordingly all the pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed off.
D. File be consigned to the record room. (Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶14

[SBJ (SA No.383/2023) Page 3 of 3

Dineshkumar Murlidhar Inani v. Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dineshkumar Murlidhar Inani v. Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Vishal Nilkanthrao Pawade

Dinkar so Madhukar Nikam versus Icici Home Finace Company Ltd.

Ms Balaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal versus Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Hanumat Babasaheb Ghodke

Salim Ahmed Moiz Ahmed versus Sangli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Ulhas Shivajirao Gapat versus Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.