Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S Gagan Pulses Private Ltd.

DRT26 Nov 2024TA/1760/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a debt recovery application filed under the DBT Act and SFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for recovery of approximately Rs. 72.88 crores against the borrower and five guarantors/mortgagors.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application and directed defendants to pay Rs. 72.88 crores with interest; issued recovery certificate for enforcement.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Gagan Pulses Private Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No. 1760 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 1760 of 2022

¶5

Indian Overseas Bank 4th Floor, Rachna Building 2, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 Applicant
Versus
1.M/sGagan Pulses Private Ltd. (Borrower and Mortgagor) C-42, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area New Delhi-110035
2. Sh. Samar Chand Gupta (Guarantor / Mortgagor) R/o 105, Block PU Pitampura, Delhi-110088
3.Sh. Ram Lal Gupta (Guarantor) R/o 105, Block PU Pitampura, Delhi-110088
4.Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta (Guarantor) R/o 105, Block PU Pitampura, Delhi-110088
5.^{M/s J.T.Agro Foods Private Limited} 105, Block PU, Pitampura, Delhi-110088
6.M/s Amar Dal Mill (Proprietorship concern of Amar Chand Gupta) (Mortgagor) C-42, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area New Delhi-110035 Defendants
Present: Sh.Ronnie S Barara, Counsel for Applicant Bank

¶6

T.A. No. 1760 of 2022

¶7

Date of Institution: 01.02.2018

¶8

Date of Pronouncement: 26.11.2024

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi on 01.02.2018 through - Shri V. Damarupani, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.72,88,10,933/- (Rupees Seventy Two Crores Eighty Eight Lacs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Three only) as on 30.01.2018 together with pendentelite and future interest @13.20% per annum with monthly rests from 31.01.2018 till its realization with costs. Further, the name of Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta was substituted as authorized representative in place of Shri V. Damarupani, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that the defendant no. 1 being private limited company of defendant no.2 and 4 as its personal guarantors / mortgagor, the defendant no.5 as Corporate Guarantor/ Mortgagor and defendant no.6 being proprietorship concern approached the applicant bank, which had sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.60.00 crores against hypothecation of stocks, receivables and mortgage of immovable properties of defendant no.1, 2, 5 and 6 on 04.07.2014 in favour of defendant no.1 which was acknowledged and approved by Board Resolution dated 05.07.2014. The applicant bank renewed the limits on 31.03.2016 on the request of defendant no.1.

¶12

T.A. No. 1760 of 2022

¶13

That the defendant no.3 and 4 are mortgagors for the credit facility availed by defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 approved the said loan facilities and security as per Board Resolution dated 18.01.2014 and execution of various documents with applicant bank. In addition, the defendant no.5 stood as guarantor on 27.05.2014 to secure the loan facility availed by defendant no.1.

¶14

That in order to avail the credit facilities, the defendant No.1 acknowledged the sanction letter dated 04.07.2014 of the applicant bank in Board Meeting held on 05.07.2014 and executed Letter of Hypothecation of Book Debts, Letter of Hypothecation of Advances and Credits, Letter of Agreement for machineries/vehicle/goods, Guarantees of Cash Credit Agreement, Affidavits of Worthiness, Letter of Undertakings by defendants, Demand Promissory Note, Declarations, Letters dated 04.08.2014 & 30.09.2014, Affidavits about RBI's Defaulters List, Letter of Indemnity of Properties,

¶15

That in order to secure the credit facilities availed by defendant no.1 with the applicant bank, the following properties were mortgaged by defendant no.1,2,5 and 6 by depositing title deeds of their properties along with Confirmation Letter, Undertakings dated 04.08.2014 and 30.09.2014 i.e.:

¶16

Factory land & building situated at Plot No.986, Block G, Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi admeasuring 350 sq.meters owned by defendant no.1 on 07.11.2014;

¶17

Shop No.2647, Ground Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 admeasuring 380 sq.ft. owned by defendant no.6 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 on 07.11.2014;

¶18

T.A. No. 1760 of 2022

¶19

Industrial Plot No.C-43/3, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, Delhi-35 admeasuring 400 sq.yds. owned by defendant no.6 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 on 07.11.2014;

¶20

Plot No.521, HSIIDC, Food Park, Rai, Sonepat Dist. Owned by defendant no.5 through its director being defendant no.3 on 19.11.2014;

¶21

Flat bearing No.1/19, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, Delhi35 owned by defendant no.2 on 07.11.2014.

¶22

The defendants acknowledged the outstanding debit balance of Rs.57,17,17,040.14 as on 30.06.2015 with the applicant bank on 16.12.2015.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank/FI that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant no.1 failed to maintain financial discipline in terms of sanction and also failed service the interest with the applicant bank. The applicant bank time and again requested the defendant no.1 for regularization of the account but neglected by the defendants. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2017 as per RBI guidelines, hence the applicant FI has approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 07.07.2017 for Rs.66,70,42,193/- as on 30.06.2017 was issued and served on the defendants. The defendant no.1 raised objection on 06.09.2017 which was duly replied under Section 13(3A) of the Act. The applicant bank issued notice under Rule 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 dated 05.10.2017

¶25

T.A. No. 1760 of 2022

¶26

and 06.10.2017 for taking symbolic possession of mortgaged properties duly published in two newspapers.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri V. Damarupani, authorized representatives of the applicant and Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, as additional evidence who have proved the documents as General Power of Attorney Exh.AW-1/1, Sanction Letter Exh.AW-1/2, Board Resolutions Exh.AW-1/3 & Exh.AW-1/13, Resolution by Share Holders Exh.AW-1/4, Confirmation Letter Exh.AW-1/5 & Exh.AW-1/14, Copy of Title Deeds Exh.AW1/6(colly), AW-1/9(colly), AW-1/12(colly), AW-1/15(colly) & AW-1/18(colly), Two Undertakings Exh.AW-1/7(colly), AW1/16 & AW-1/29(colly), Confirmation Letters Exh.AW-1/8, AW1/11 & AW-1/17, Undertaking Exh.AW-1/10, AW-1/25, AW1/28, AW-1/30 & AW-1/31, Letters of Hypothecation Exh.AW1/19 to Exh.AW-1/21, Guarantees Exh.AW-1/22, Affidavits Exh.AW-1/23(colly), Corporate Guarantee Exh.AW-1/24, Demand Promissory Note Exh.AW-1/26(colly), Letters of Indemnity Exh.AW-32 to AW-1/36, Acknowledgement of outstanding Debit Balance Exh.AW-1/37, Sanction Letter dated 31.03.2016 Exh.AW-1/38, Revival Letter Exh.AW-1/39, Demand Notice u/s 13(2) Exh.AW-1/40(colly), Reply u/s 13(3A) Exh.AW-1/41(colly), Notice under Rule 8(1) Exh.AW1/42(colly), Statement of Account Exh.AW-1/43(colly).

¶28

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶29

T.A. No. 1760 of 2022

¶30

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶31

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 and 6 to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.72,88,10,933/- (Rupees Seventy Two Crores Eighty Eight Lacs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Three only) as on 30.01.2018 together with pendentelite and future interest @13.20% per annum along with costs from 30.01.2018 till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, machineries etc. as well as from sale of mortgaged properties as :

¶34

Factory land & building situated at Plot No.986, Block G, Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi admeasuring 350 sq.meters owned by defendant no.1;

¶35

Shop No.2647, Ground Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 admeasuring 380 sq.ft. owned by defendant no.6 through its proprietor being defendant no.2;

¶36

Industrial Plot No.C-43/3, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, Delhi-35 admeasuring 400 sq.yds. owned by defendant no.6 through its proprietor being defendant no.2;

¶37

T.A. No. 1760 of 2022

¶38

Plot No.521, HSIIDC, Food Park, Rai, Sonepat Dist. Owned by defendant no.5 through its director being defendant no.3;

¶39

Flat bearing No.1/19, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, Delhi35 owned by defendant no.2.

¶40

In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of defendant no.1 to 6.

¶41

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶42

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.01.2025.

¶43

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶44

5af

¶45

(GOVIND BALLABH SaARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶46

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.11.2024

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S Gagan Pulses Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S Gagan Pulses Private Ltd.

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

Haseena K versus Idbi Bank

Ms Agrawal Shipping logistics through its Partner Mr Deepak Manubhai Agrawal versus State Bank of India

Loharkars Hotel Gym Sallon Spa and Creators th ajay loharkar versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd. Th Authorized Officer

Mr R Chandrashekar versus City Union Bank Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shri Amit Kumar Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Neeraj Tiwari