Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Om Sai Ram Textiles

DRT6 May 2024TA/3334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Bench allowed the recovery application filed by Bank of Baroda in an ex-parte proceeding. The tribunal directed the defaulting borrowers and guarantor to pay the outstanding loan amount with interest within 30 days, failing which recovery shall be effected through the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, and mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Directing payment of Rs. 21,80,707/- plus interest within 30 days; directing recovery from sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, and mortgaged property in case of default.

Bank of Baroda versus Om Sai Ram Textiles — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.3334 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. 3334 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

ROSARB Branch Rajendra Place New Delhi

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Om Sai Ram Textiles

¶10

Proprietor Devendra Kumar

¶11

H.No.69, Ramlila Maidan Purani Pipelines, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201206

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Khasra No.1013 & 1014 Village Sarna Murad Nagar Ward No.7, Mohalla Brahmnan Muradnagar, Pargana Jalalabad

¶14

Tehsil Modi Nagar, Dist.Ghaziabad, UP

¶15

Devendra Kumar s/o Raghunath H.No.69, Ramlila Maidan Purani Pipelines, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201206

¶16

Also at:

¶17

Khasra No.1013 & 1014 Village Sarna Murad Nagar Ward No.7, Mohalla Brahmnan Muradnagar, Pargana Jalalabad Tehsil Modi Nagar, Dist.Ghaziabad, UP

¶18

Smt.Babita @ Babita Rani w/o Devendra Kumar, Guarantor H.No.69, Ramlila Maidan Purani Pipelines, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, UP-201206

¶19

T.A. No.3334 of 2022

¶20

Defendants

¶21

Also at: Khasra No.1013 & 1014 Village Sarna Murad Nagar Ward No.7, Mohalla Brahmnan Muradnagar, Pargana Jalalabad Tehsil Modi Nagar, Dist.Ghaziabad, UP

¶22

Present: Sh.Biswajit Kumar Patra, Counsel for applicant bank

¶23

Date of Institution: 06.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 06.05.2024

¶24

FINAL ORDER

¶25

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 06.10.2021 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Dr. Amit Gupta, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,80,707/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Seven only) as on 12.08.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @11.40% per annum along with 2% penal interest with monthly rest from 13.08.2021 till its realization with costs.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant No.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit limit of Rs.15.00 lacs (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) on 25.01.2014 @ contractual rate of interest and penal interest in case of default against hypothecation of stock, book debts including equitable mortgage of property. That the defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the repayment of the loan facility availed by defendant no.1.

sct

T.A. No.3334 of 2022

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendants executed Letter of sole proprietorship, Demand Promissory Note, Power of Attorney for Book Debts, Letter of Continuity, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Declarationcum-Undertaking-cum-Authority and Declaration of mortgage by deposit of title deeds by defendant no.3 in respect of immovable property all dated 28.02.2014.

¶31

That in order to secure the credit facility, defendant no.3 created equitable mortgage by depositing title deed of property bearing all parts and parcel of residential plot on Khasra No.1013-1014, Village Sarna, Ward No.7, Brahman Murad Nagar, Pargana Jalalbad, Tehsil Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP measuring 156 sq.yds. vide Memorandum of Entry dated 28.02.2014 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶32

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to honor its commitments as per terms and conditions of the sanction and failed to repay the overdue interest despite regular follow up. Ultimately, the applicant bank called upon the defendants to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank. The account was classified as NPA on 11.09.2017 by applicant bank as per RBI guidelines. The applicant bank issued recall / legal notice dated 18.12.2020 to defendants to clear the dues but defendants failed hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues

¶33

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 05.02.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not

SG/

T.A. No.3334 of 2022

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

¶38

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Dr.Amit Gupta, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex AW1/1, General Form of Guarantee, Letter of Confirmation & Affidavit Ex.AW1/2(colly), Letter of sole proprietorship Ex.AW1/3, Demand Promissory Note Ex.AW1/4, Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/5, Declarationcum-Undertaking-cum-Authority Ex.AW1/6, Letter of Undertaking Exh.AW1/7^{, Declaration of Mortgage Ex.AW1/8,} Memorandum of Entry Exh.AW1/9, Letter of Continuity Ex.AW1/10, Composite Hypothecation Agreement Ex.AW1/11, Letter of Acknowledgement Ex.AW1/12, Legal Demand Notice Ex.AW1/13(colly), Certificate under Banker's Book Evidence Act & 65B of Evidence Act Ex.AW1/14(colly).

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

T.A. No.3334 of 2022

ORDER

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendants, jointly or severally, to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,80,707/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Seven only) as on 12.08.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @13.40% per annum from 13.08.2021 till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated stocks, book debts and mortgaged property bearing all parts and parcel of residential plot on Khasra No.1013-1014, Village Sarna, Ward No.7, Brahman Murad Nagar, Pargana Jalalbad, Tehsil Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP measuring 156 sq.yds. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶46

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

¶47

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 04.07.2024.

¶48

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

¶49

$ct

¶50

(GOVIND BALLABH SHAR A) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶51

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 06.05.2024

¶52

Bank of Baroda v. Om Sai Ram Textiles

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Om Sai Ram Textiles

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

Central Bank of India versus Vipin Gupta

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Swatatra Int Bhandar

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Vishal Building Material

Canara Bank versus M/S Junaid Traders

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Rgs Traders

Ms Himgiri Commercial and Trading Enterprise Private Limited versus the Baghat Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.