Allowed

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Ess Aar Industries

DRT8 May 2024TA/2547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a recovery proceeding where the答辩人 defaulted on an SDOH loan facility. After notice and attempted liquidation failed, the bank filed this application. The court allowed the matter ex-parte against absent respondents and directed payment of the outstanding amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 3,20,52,793.10 with interest within 30 days; order for recovery from sale of hypothecated stock, book debts, and mortgaged properties.

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) versus Ess Aar Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.2547 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. 2547 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank(e-Syndicate Bank) 3.T.D.Building

¶6

Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ess Aar Industries Through its partners

¶9

2912, Ground Floor,

¶10

27, Ghara Kinari Bazar

¶11

Chandni Chbwk, Delhi-110006

¶12

Ritesh Garg s/o Satya Narain Gupta Partner

¶13

Satya Narain Gupta s/o late Radar Chand Gupta Partner

¶14

Ayushie Garg w/o Ritesh Garg

¶15

All resident of A-104, Exotica Elegance Ahinsa Khand-II, Indrapuram Shipra Sun City, Ghaziabad-201014 Defendants

¶16

Present: Ms Vandana Bhatia, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶17

Date of Institution: 13.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2024

¶18

T.A. No.2547 of 2022

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 13.01.2021 before DRT III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Anil Kumar Jain, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,20,52,793.10 (Rupees Three Crore Twenty Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Three & paisa Ten only) as on 21.05.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest @16.60% per annum and 2% penal interest with monthly rests from 22.05.2020 till the date of realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh.Arun Bhardwaj was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Anil Kumar Jain, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 being partnership firm of defendant no.2 & 3, the applicant bank sanctioned SDOH limit for Rs.425.00 lacs (Rupees Four crore Fifty Lacs only) on 26.09.2016 for working capital requirements @MCLR+2.5°/0 per annum subject to change and penal interest @2% in the event of default in payment on due date against hypothecation of stock & book debts and mortgage of properties. Further, the defendant no.2 to 4 stood as guarantors to the credit facility availed by defendant no.1.

¶22

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants executed Partnership letter, Letter of authority, Power of attorney, Charge of hypothecation of debts agreement, Letter of undertaking, Undrawn limit letter,

sot

T.A. No.2547 of 2022

Authority letter, Confirmation of creation of second / subsequent equitable mortgage, Composite hypothecation Agreement, Letter from borrower/guarantor regarding undrawn limit, Guarantee agreement respectively with applicant bank on 26.09.2016.

¶27

In order to secure the credit facility, respondents mortgaged the following properties:

¶28

Existing UREM of Shop on ground floor, part of property no.2912, Satisghara, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi without roof rights area measuring 21.84 sq.mtr. Existing UREM of land & building at lease hold Industrial Plot No.29/2/9 Industrial Area, Site No.4, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶29

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 to the defendants, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding dues in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank calling upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank but the defendants did not clear the dues of the applicant bank. The applicant bank declared the account as NPA on 29.05.2019 as per RBI guidelines but there was no response from the defendants hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of the dues.

¶30

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 22.12.2023, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not

¶31

¶32

T.A. No.2547 of 2022

¶33

appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets has been filed by the defendants.

¶34

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 31.05.2019 was issued by the applicant bank calling upon the defendants but they neglected the same and deliberately failed to liquidate the amount.

¶35

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan application Ex.AW1/2, Sanction letter Ex.AW1/3, Letter of Partner Ex.AW1/4, Letter of authority Ex.AW1/ 5, Power of attorney Ex.AW1/6, Charge of hypothecation of debt Ex.AW1/7, Letter of undertaking Ex.AW1/8 & 12, 13, 15 Undertaking for non-payment of unsecured loans Ex.AW1/9, Letter from borrower regarding undrawn limit Ex.AW1/10, Authority letter Ex.AW1/11, Composite hypothecation agreement Ex.AW1/16, Guarantee agreement Ex.AW1/17-20, Sale deed Ex.AW1/21(Colly), Notice u/s 13(2) Ex.AW1/22 (Colly), Certified account statement under Banker's book of Evidence Act Ex.AW1/23(colly).

¶36

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.

¶37

¶38

T.A. No.2547 of 2022

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.3,20,52,793.10 (Rupees Three Crore Twenty Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Three & paisa Ten only) as on 21.05.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest @16.60% per annum with monthly rest from 22.05.2020 till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock & book debts and sale of mortgaged properties:

¶43

i) Existing UREM of Shop on ground floor, part of property no.2912, Satisghara, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi without roof rights area measuring 21.84 sq.mtr.

¶44

ii) Existing UREM of land & building at lease hold Industrial Plot No.29/2/9 Industrial Area, Site No.4, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶45

In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶46

T.A. No.2547 of 2022

¶47

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

¶48

iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 08.07.2024.

¶49

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

¶50

(GOVIND BACCAT31-1 SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶51

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 08.05.2024

¶52

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Ess Aar Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Ess Aar Industries

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Yashswi Udyog, through Its Proprietor Ms. Amita Kiran Dandi

Bank of India versus M/S Suneeta Sales Corporation

State Bank of India versus Shri Rajneesh Kumar Singh

State Bank of India versus Ms Damanpreet Kaur

State Bank of India versus Sh Swaran Singh

S Jagat Singh Memorial Educational Society and Ors. versus Ms Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.