Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Supertech Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd.

DRT18 Mar 2024TA/14/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of overdraft dues. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable and directed payment of principal, interest, and penalties to the appellant bank.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several payment of Rs. 26,30,341.87 plus interest and penalties; Recovery Certificate issued; Asset restriction order.

Bank of Baroda versus Supertech Facility Management Services… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

TA 14 of 2023

¶2

Registered on:08.03.2023

¶3

Decided on: 18.03.2024

¶4

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI TRANSFER ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 14 of 2023 (OA (D) No. 160/2023 is Transferred from DRT-II, Mumbai & Registered as TOA No. 14/2023)

¶5

BANK OF BARODA, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Baroda Bhavan, R. C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 007 and Corporate Office at Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051 and having its Horniman Circle (PBB) Branch at Ground Floor, 10/12, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 023, through its Chief Manager, Mr. Rajendra W. Pagare.

¶6

…. APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. M/S. SUPERTECH FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. Ltd. a private limited company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its address at Gala No. 5, Baba Yadav Compound, Behind Manoj Dairy, Road No. 5, Natwar Nagar, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai- 400 060. The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are the Directors of Defendant No. I will accept service of summons on behalf of the Defendant No.1.

¶9

2. MR. AMIT RANGANATH POONJA, of Indian Inhabitant residing at Flat No. 101, "A" Wing, 10th Floor, Brookhaven, Near Majas Bus Depot, J. V. Link Road,

¶10

¶11

TA 14 of 2023

¶12

Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai- 400 060.

¶13

3. MRS. NAVYA AMIT POONJA, of Indian Inhabitant residing at Flat No. 101, "A" Wing, 10th Floor, Brookhaven, Near Majas Bus Depot, J. V. Link Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai-400 060.

¶14

… DEFENDANT

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant : Advocate Nilesh Bamne i/b M/s. A.R. Bamne & Co.

¶16

Counsel for the Defendants : Ex-parte

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The Original Application has been filed by the Applicant against the Defendants before Ld. DRT-II, Mumbai, which stands transferred to this Tribunal as per letter dated 06.02.2023 of Ld. Registrar DRT-II, Mumbai and registered as TA No. 14/2023. The OA has been filed by the Applicant for recovery of following amounts:

¶19

i. Rs. 23,59,154.62 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty Four and Paise Sixty Two Only) with interest at the rate of 8.45 % p.a. with monthly rests plus 2 % penal interest from 16.11.2022 till the payment and or realization.

¶20

ii. Rs. 2,71,187.25 (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Twenty Five Only) with further interest at the rate of 8.45% p.a. with monthly resets plus 2 % penal interest from 16.11.2022 till the payment and or realization.

¶21

¶22

TA 14 of 2023

¶23

Facts as succinctly set out in the present OA are that the Defendant No. 1 is the principal borrower. Defendant No. 2 & 3 are the guarantors having created equitable mortgage in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶24

It is stated that pursuant to the application made by the Defendant No. 1, the Applicant vide their sanction letter dated 31.10.2017 granted term loan (Car) of Rs. 33,90,000/- to the Defendant No. 1 to purchase new Ford Endeavour 3.2L TITANIUM AT 4x4 car. The said loan was to be repaid in 84 monthly installments of Rs. 55,060/-.

¶25

In consideration of sanction of aforesaid term loan (car) of Rs. 33.90 Lakh, Defendant No. 1 executed Loan Agreement Cum- Deed dated 31.10.2017 as loaning and security document in favour of the Applicant. The Defendant No. 1 also, hypothecated the said For Endeavour Car purchased in favour of the Applicant. Further, Defendant No. 2 & 3 executed a joint letter of guarantee dated 31.10.2017 in favour of the Applicant.

¶26

Further, it is stated that pursuant to the request made by Defendant No. 1 and on the basis the Invoice No. FOD 17-18/Dec/21 issued by the dealer M/s. Kavish Automobiles Pvt. Ltd the Applicant duly disbursed the said term loan by paying Rs. 33.90 Lakh on 31.10.2017 directly to the said dealer M/s. Kavish Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. towards the payment of the price of the said car.

¶27

It is also stated that pursuant to the application made by the Defendant No. 1, the Applicant vide their sanction letter dated 31.07.2018 granted term loan (Car) of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the Defendant no. 1 to purchase new Maruti EECO 5 star AC with CNG

¶28

¶29

TA 14 of 2023

¶30

car. The said loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installment of Rs. 9,390/-.

¶31

In consideration of sanction of aforesaid term loan (car) of Rs. 4.50 Lakh, Defendant No. 1 executed Loan Agreement Cum- Deed dated 31.07.2018 as loaning and security document in favour of the Applicant. The Defendant No. 1 also, hypothecated the said Maruti ECCO car purchased in favour of the Applicant. Further, Defendant No. 2 & 3 executed a joint letter of guarantee dated 31.07.2018 in favour of the Applicant.

¶32

Further, it is stated that pursuant to the request made by Defendant No. 1 and on the basis the Invoice issued by the dealer M/s. Sai Service Pvt. Ltd., the Applicant duly disbursed the said term loan by paying Rs. 4.50 Lakh on 14.08.2018 directly to the said dealer M/s. Sau Service Pvt. Ltd. towards the payment of the price of the said car.

¶33

It is also stated that Defendants by separate letters of acknowledgement of liability dated 21.10.2020 and 04.12.2020 have duly confirmed, admitted and acknowledged their liabilities to the Applicant under the said Term Loan Car of Rs. 33.90 Lakh & 4.50 Lakh.

¶34

However, after availing aforesaid facility, Defendant No. 1 became highly irregular in operating accounts, and also failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues thus, the accounts were classified as NPA from 23.12.2021. Thereafter, the Applicant through their advocates recall notice dated 25.07.2022 and called upon the Defendants to pay the outstanding dues, but failed to do so. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶35

¶36

TA 14 of 2023

¶37

Notices were issued to the Defendants. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 to 3 nor any WS has been filed, thus they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.03.2024.

¶38

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed through Chief Manager C. R. Kamath.

¶39

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record.

¶40

The witness of the Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant Bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the defendants. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the Applicant Bank and the Applicant Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of Defendant No. 1 to 3 is joint and several.

¶41

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application filed by the Applicant Bank deserves to be allowed against the Defendant No.1 to 3.

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(i) I allow the present O.A. and direct the Defendant No. 1 to 3 to pay to the Applicant, jointly and severally, within a period of 60 days, a sum of following amounts:

¶44

a. Rs. 23,59,154.62 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty Four and Paise Sixty Two Only) with interest at the rate of 8.45 % p.a.

¶45

¶46

TA 14 of 2023

¶47

with monthly rests plus 2 % penal interest from 16.11.2022 till the payment and or realization.

¶48

b. Rs. 2,71,187.25 (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Twenty Five Only) with further interest at the rate of 8.45% p.a. with monthly resets plus 2 % penal interest from 16.11.2022 till the payment and or realization.

¶49

c. Aggregating to Rs. 26,30,341.87 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Forty One and Paise Eighty Seven Only) with interest mentioned herein above.

¶50

(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated assets, personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendants.

¶51

(iii) Defendants are hereby directed not to deal with their properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶52

(iv) Defendants shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶53

(v) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶54

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record.

¶55

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 18.03.2024 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.

¶56

Tjs/-

¶57

Bank of Baroda v. Supertech Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Supertech Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd.

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

Idbi Bank versus Space Cellular Pvt. Ltd.

Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. versus Jarandeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

Idbi Bank versus Mr Moiem Sayed Nasir Zaidi

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Bengal Mills Stores Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Sachin Kashiram

Jay Jaharveer Baba Enterprises versus State Bank of India