Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Anjani Tiles and Sanitary Ware

DRT23 Dec 2024TA/3264/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues from a defaulting proprietorship firm, personal loan borrowers, and a guarantor, ordering payment of principal amount with interest and granting directions for asset realization.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay principal sum of Rs.35,59,334/- and Rs.7,25,914/- with interest; authorization to recover shortfall via sale of hypothecated stock, mortgaged property, or other assets.

Canara Bank versus M/S Anjani Tiles and Sanitary Ware — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.3264 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. 3264 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) Having its branch at:

¶6

177, Haiderpur

¶7

Delhi-110088 Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Anjani Tiles and Sanitary Ware Proprietorship firm at:

¶10

SI-7, I Block, near OBC Bank Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001

¶11

Also at:

¶12

138, Vivekanand Nagar

¶13

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001

¶14

Mrs. Anita Tiwari w/o Manoj Kumar Tiwari

¶15

R/o 138, Vivekanand Nagar

¶16

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001

¶17

Sh. Mohd. Zahid s/o Sh.Abdul Gafar R/o H.No.160, Malik Nagar Ghaziabad, UP-201206 Defendants

¶18

Present: Sh.Anshuman Srivastrava, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶19

Date of Institution: 07.11.2020

¶20

Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2024

¶21

T.A. No.3264 of 2022

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 07.11.2020 before DRT III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Shri Vipin Kumar Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.42,85,249/- (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty Nine only) as on 30.09.2020, out of which Rs.35,59,334/- in SOD account @10.25% per annum by the defendants and on Rs.7,25,914/- in Personal loan accounts @13.50% pendentelite and future interest with monthly rests from 30.09.2020 by defendant no.1 and 2 till the date of realization and costs.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 as proprietorship firm of Sh.Manoj Tiwari and defendant no.2 vide application 28.08.2014, the applicant bank sanctioned SOD limit of Rs.20.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) on 29.08.2014 @11.75% interest per annum respectively plus 0.50% penal interest for business against hypothecation of stocks, goods and book debts along with mortgage of property owned by defendant no.1. The applicant bank renewed the SOD limit on 20.03.2017 as per request of the defendant no.1 for Rs.20.00 lacs The applicant bank sanctioned Personal loan facility of Rs.3.00 lacs each @13.50% interest to be repayable in EMI of Rs.6939/- each in favour of Sh.Manoj Tiwari and defendant no.2 on 18.03.2017. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the loan facility sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶25

T.A. No.3264 of 2022

¶26

That in order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendant no.1 & 3 executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Undertaking Letter / Declaration (Annexure 6), Letter from Borrower/Guarantor regarding Undrawn limits (Annexure-9), Undertaking Letter (Annexure 10), POA for Collection of Bills, book debts and other receivable and affidavit executed by defendant no.1. The defendant no.3 executed Agreement of Guarantee on 29.08.2016 and 20.03.2017. Further, the defendant no.1 & 2 further executed General Agreement ASD-3 and ASD-6 for the personal loan facilities sanctioned with the applicant bank.

¶27

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the stocks / goods / stored located at SI-7, I Block, Near OBC Bank, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP in favour of the applicant bank.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that the proprietor of defendant no.1, Sh.Manoj Tiwari created equitable mortgage of property bearing H.No. 138, Sector IV, Vivekanand Nagar, Near Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP, measuring 38.184 sq.meters on 29.08.2014 by depositing title documents of the property with the applicant bank.

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite of several requests. The applicant bank issued legal demand notice dated 13.09.2017 for recovery of dues and defendant no.1 deposited Rs.1.00 lacs for regularization but failed to adhere the repayment schedule. The applicant bank classified the Sod account as NPA on 29.08.2017 and other two accounts became irregular on 31.07.2018 which were also declared NPA as the 5d-

¶30

T.A. No.3264 of 2022

¶31

defendants defaulted in monthly installment in personal loan facilities as per RBI guidelines. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶32

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 16.06.2022, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets has been filed by the defendants.

¶33

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Vipin Kumar Sharma, authorized representative of applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney of Authorized Officer, Loan Application, Sanction Letters, Composite Hypothecation Agreements, Guarantee Agreements, Undertakings, Letter handing over Title Deeds, Extension of Limit Request, Sanction of Loan, General Agreements, Guarantee Agreements, Legal Demand Notice, Statement of Accounts along with Certificate of Bankers' Books Evidence Act marked as Annexure Al to Annexure A-23.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

T.A. No.3264 of 2022

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 to 3, jointly or severally, to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.35,59,334/- in SOD account along with pendentelite and future interest @10.25% per annum and defendant no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.7,25,914/- in Personal loan accounts @13.50% along with pendentelite and future interest with monthly rests from 30.09.2020 till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock, goods of defendant no.1 as well as mortgaged property bearing H.No. 138, Sector IV, Vivekanand Nagar, Near Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP, measuring 38.184 sq.meters. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the 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 21.02.2025.

¶42

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate 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: 23.12.2024

Canara Bank v. M/S Anjani Tiles and Sanitary Ware

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Anjani Tiles and Sanitary Ware

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

Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Pracheer Bhardwaj

Axis Bank versus Sh. Kapil Gupta

Canara Bank versus Smt.Sidamma

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shri Giriraj Traders

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Bansiwala Roadlines

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hydrabad) versus M/S Aakriti Fashion