Allowed

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) v. M/S Garg Enterprises

DRT13 Dec 2024TA/181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi allowed the original application filed by Bank of Baroda seeking recovery of Rs. 85.81 lacs. The Tribunal found the bank's evidence, including loan agreements, guarantees, and notices under SARFAESI Act, uncontradicted due to the ex-parte stance of the defendants.

What did the court decide?

Direction to defendants 1-3 to pay Rs. 85,81,040/- with interest within 30 days; recovery through hypothecated stock or other properties in case of shortfall.

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) versus M/S Garg Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No. 181 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma T.A. No.181 of 2022
Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) ROSARB Branch 1st Floor, 8718, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 Applicant
Versus
1. M/s Garg Enterprises (Proprietorship concern) R/o H.No.3-A, Main 60 Ft. Road Rishi Market, Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201102
2. Sh.Dinesh Garg Proprietor R/o H.No.H-3/13, S/P Krishna Nagar, East Delhi-110051
3.Sh.Satish Garg (Guarantor) R/o H.No.3-A, Main 60 Ft. Road Rishi Market, Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201102 Defendants
Present: Shri Biswajit Kumar Patra, Counsel for the applicant bank
Date of Institution: 19.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 5d

¶4

T.A. No. 181 of 2022

¶5

FINAL ORDER

¶6

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 19.07.2022 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred o DRT-I Delhi through Shri Manish Prakash Pandey, authorized representative of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.85,81,040/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lacs Eighty One Thousand Forty only) as on 07.07.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rest from 07.07.2022 along with costs.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendants no.2, being the proprietor of defendant no.1 videhis application dated 12.01.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital / Cash Credit loan of Rs.60.00 lacs on 21.01.2019 along with interest @12.35% per annum against hypothecation of stocks. That defendant No.3 stood as guarantor for loan availed by defendant no.1 & 2.

¶8

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 executed Loan Agreement cum Hypothecation Deed dated 21.01.2019 and defendant no.3 Letter of Guarantee in favour of applicant bank.

¶9

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant No.2 mortgage the property H.No.3-A, Khasra No.1357, Rishi Market, Loni Road, Pargana & Tehsil Loni, Dist. Ghaziabad, UP measuring 263 sq.yds. by depositing original title deed of the property in favour of the applicant bank.

¶10

T.A. No. 181 of 2022

¶11

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions and despite of several requests and reminders failed to pay the outstanding dues in time in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant banks classified the account as NPA on 30.06.2019, but the defendants failed to regularize the account, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶12

The defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 executed the acknowledgement of debt dated 30.09.2019

¶13

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 02.072019 was issued by the applicant bank on the defendants and taken physical possession of the property. The applicant bank put up for auction of the property and auctioned on 17.06.2022 for Rs.65.50 lacs out of which purchaser of the property paid Rs.21,37,500/- upto 30.06.2022 which has been kept in No lien account and balance yet to be received.

¶14

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 02.09.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶15

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Manish Prakash Pandey, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Special Power of Attorney Exhibit A- 01, Accepted Sanction Letter Exhibit A-02, Letter of Guarantee

¶16

T.A. No. 181 of 2022

¶17

Exhibit A-03, Article of Guarantee Exhibit A-04, Annexure II H.O. Circular Exhibit A-05, Request letter from borrower for release of loan Exhibit A-06, Request for release of housing loan Exhibit A-07, Memorandum of deposit of title deeds related documents Exhibit A-08, Notice U/s 13(2) Exhibit A- 09(colly), Possession Notice with Postal Receipts Exhibit A-10, Valuation Report Exhibit A-11, Certified Statement of Account as per Bankers' Books of Evidence Act Exhibit A-12,

¶18

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 approved.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants no.1 to 3 to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.85,81,040/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lacs Eighty One Thousand Forty only) as on 07.07.2022 together with future interest @11.50°/0 per annum from 07.07.2022 till the date of realization; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated stock and receivables. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶23

¶24

T.A. No. 181 of 2022

¶25

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

¶26

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 12.01.2025. (IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶27

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Pronounced in open court) Dated: 13.12.2024

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) v. M/S Garg Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) v. M/S Garg Enterprises

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

Kappor Designers Exports Pvt. Ltd. versus Standard Chartered Bank

Ms Al Furqan Hardware versus Capri Global Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/s Mithilanchal Bulb Industries

Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus M/s Neohumanistic Health Services

State Bank of India versus M/s Ganesh Galla Bhandar