Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Anand Sharma

DRT21 Dec 2024TA/2574/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of a defaulting loan of approx. Rs. 3.86 crores. The court proceeded ex-parte due to respondent absence. The order directed payment within 30 days and the sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 3,86,19,387.85 with interest within 30 days or satisfy the debt by selling mortgaged properties and other assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Anand Sharma — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.2574 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. 2574 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank Circle Sastra Centre, East Delhi CSC E Block, Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi-110091 Applicant Versus

¶6

Shri Anand Sharma s/o Kishan Kumar Sharma Proprietor M/s Ganpati Textiles R/o 88, Gali No.1, Shankar Nagar Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051

¶7

Also at: D-299, UGF Anand Vihar Delhi-110092 2. M/s Ganpati Textiles X/3470, Basement, New Jain Market Shanti Mohalla, Raghubar Pura No.2 Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶8

Sh.Ashish Sharma s/o Kishan Kumar Sharma D-299, UGF Anand Vihar Delhi-110092

¶9

Also at: R/o 88, Gali No.1, Shankar Nagar Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 Defendants Present: Shri Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 16.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 21.12.2024

54 —

T.A. No.2574 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 16.04.2022 before DRT-II, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Surendra Singh, authorized representative of the applicant banks under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,86,19,387.85 (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Six Lacs Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven & paisa Eighty Five only) as on 12.04.2022 @12.30% rate of interest with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh.Saubhagya Saxena was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Surendra Singh, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit Hypothecation facility of Rs.285.00 lacs (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Five Lacs only) on 03.01.2012 against hypothecation of stocks of fabrics and mortgage of properties. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the credit facilities sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶15

In order to avail the credit facility, the defendants executed Hypothecation of Goods & Book Debts to secure Cash Credit facility, Hypothecation of Moveable Assets forming part of fixed / block assets, Agreement for Hypothecation of Current Assets, Agreement of Guarantee dated 05.01.2012 with the applicant bank.

¶16

T.A. No.2574 of 2022

¶17

That in order to secure the credit facility sanctioned by the applicant bank, the defendants hypothecated the stocks, book debts and created mortgage of the properties on 06.01.2012 by executing requisite documents / Letter of Intent (Annexure IIA):

¶18

Basement of Built up Property bearing No.X/3470, Out of Khasra No.248/1, New Jain Market, Raghubar Pura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi admeasuring 57.67 sq.yds owned by defendant no.1

¶19

Two Shops bearing No.C-71 & C-71A, admeasuring 18.15 sq.yds on Basement Floor, Property bearing no.X/3470, Out of Khasra No.248/1, New Jain Market, Raghubar Pura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi owned by defendant no.1& 3.

¶20

The applicant bank restructured the account of defendant no.2 by sanctioning Funded Interest Term Loan of Rs.34.50 lacs on 31.03.2020 to be repayable in 60 EMI of Rs.57,500/- from November 2020 which was duly accepted and acknowledged by defendant No.1 and 2. The defendant no.1 and 2 along with defendant no.3 acknowledged the sanction letter dated 31.03.2020 and executed Debtor-Creditor Agreement, Funded Interest Term Loan / working Capital Term loan on 31.03.2020.

¶21

The defendants acknowledged their liability of debt towards applicant bank by executing Balance and Security Confirmation letter dated 30.06.2016 for Rs.2,87,56,668/-, dated 10.06.2019 for Rs.2,92,95,923.80 as of 31.05.2019 and on dated 10.01.2020 for Rs.2,88,09,477.30 as of 31.12.2019.

¶22

T.A. No.2574 of 2022

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant banks that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants miserably failed and neglected to pay the interest and installments in the accounts and failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms and conditions despite various notices and reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 19.06.2020 as per extant RBI guidelines but defendants neglected to clear the overdues, hence the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶24

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 22.11.2023, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶25

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 03.10.2020 was issued to the defendants by the applicant bank and defendants submitted reply under Section 13(3A) on 20.11.2020 and was replied by the applicant bank on 05.12.2020. The applicant bank submitted that the defendants routed their sales through Current account with HDFC Bank without permission in violation of RBI guidelines. The applicant bank took symbolic possession of the property vide notice dated 29.12.2020.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Surendra Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank who have proved the documents as General Power of Attorney Ex.PW-1/1, Sanction

¶27

T.A. No.2574 of 2022

¶28

Letter Exh.PW-1/2, Hypothecation of Goods & Book debts to secure Cash Credit Facility Exh.PW-1/3, Hypothecation of Moveable Assets Forming part of Fixed/Block Assets Ex.PW1/4, Agreement for Hypothecation of Current Assets Exh.PW1/5, Agreement of Guarantee Exh.PW-1/6, Letter of Intent Exh.PW-1/7 & 7A, Letter of Acknowledgement Exh.PW-1/8 & 8A, Acknowledgement of Liability Exh.PW-1/9 & PW-1/10, Balance and Security Confirmation Letter Exh.PW-1/11 & Exh.PW-1/12, Sanction Letter FITL Exh.PW-1/13, DebtorCreditor Agreement Exh.PW-1/14, FITL dated 31.012020 Exh.PW-1/15, Notice u/s 13(2) Exh.PW-1/16, Representation u/s 13(3) Exh.PW-1/17, Reply dated 05.12.2020 Exh.PW-1/18, Postal Receipt Exh.PW-1/19, Possession Notice Exh.PW-1/20 & Exh.PW-1/21, Title Deeds Exh.PW-1/22 & Exh.PW-1/23, Statement of both the Accounts Exh.PW-1/24 & Exh.PW-1/25.

¶29

11.^{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.

¶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

13.^{In the light of the above discussions, the Original} Application deserves to be allowed.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days,

¶34

5d--

¶35

T.A. No.2574 of 2022

¶36

a sum of Rs.3,86,19,387.85 (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Six Lacs Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven & paisa Eighty Five only) as on 12.04.2022 along with pendentelite interest @12.30% interest from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from hypothecated stocks, current assets and sale of mortgaged properties :

¶37

Basement of Built up Property bearing No.X/3470, Out of Khasra No.248/1, New Jain Market, Raghubar Pura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi admeasuring 57.67 sq.yds owned by defendant no.1

¶38

Two Shops bearing No.C-71 & C-71A, admeasuring 18.15 sq.yds on Basement Floor, Property bearing no.X/3470, Out of Khasra No.248/1, New Jain Market, Raghubar Pura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi owned by defendant no.1& 3.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 19.02.2025.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 21.12.2024

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Anand Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Anand Sharma

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

Ramesh Kumar B versus PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s The Bakery Box

Munna Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Sabir

Union Bank of India versus Pushpa Devi

Hdfc Bank versus Vandana Goyal