Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Vinod Goswami

DRT24 Dec 2024TA/594/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of India against defendant proprietors and guarantors for recovery of dues. The court directed recovery of the principal along with interest and costs, ordering the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 21,60,896/- with interest and costs; recovery certificate to be issued.

Bank of India versus Sh. Vinod Goswami — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No. 594 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.594 of 2023

¶5

Bank of India Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi-110002 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.^{Shri Vinod Goswami s/o Mool Chand} Proprietor M/s Jagdamba Sarees R/o 34/4, First Floor, Gali No.1 West Ghonda, Delhi-110053

¶8

Also at: 34/4, Basement, Gali No.1 West Ghonda, Delhi-110053

¶9

Also at: C-4/100, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053

¶10

Mrs.Sonika Goswami w/o Vinod Goswami R/o 34/4, First Floor, Gali No.1 West Ghonda, Delhi-110053

¶11

Also at:

¶12

C-4/100, Yamuna Vihar Defendants Delhi-110053

¶13

Present: Sh.Pradeep Kumar Jha, Counsel for applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 31.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 24.12.2024

¶15

T.A. No. 594 of 2023

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 31.10.2019 filed before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Sh.Suresh Chand Gautam, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.21,60,896/(Rupees Twenty One Lacs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Six only) as on 30.09.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.40% per annum from the date of filing of this application plus @2% penal interest till its realization with costs.

¶18

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 being proprietor of M/s Jagdamba Sarees vide loan application dated 07.02.2014, the applicant bank sanctioned Capital Credit limit (Overdraft) of Rs.15.00 lacs on 12.02.2014 @13.10% interest per annum with monthly rests subject to change as per guidelines, which was enhanced to Rs.25.00 lacs on 19.09.2015 against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and equitable mortgage of property as collateral security of defendant no.2 who stood as guarantor for the credit facility availed by defendant no.1 with the applicant bank.

¶19

3. In order to avail the credit facilities, defendant no.1 submitted loan application dated 07.02.2014 and executed Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement, Cash Credit Agreement, Promissory Note, Undertaking dated 14.02.2014. The defendant no.2 executed Deed of Guarantee dated 14.02.2014 in favour of applicant bank and both the defendants

¶20

T.A. No. 594 of 2023

¶21

acknowledged terms and conditions of sanction on 14.02.2014. Further, the defendants executed Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 24.09.2015 alongwith other security documents for the enhanced limit in favour of applicant bank.

¶22

In order to secure the loan facility availed by defendant no.1, the defendant no.2 created mortgage of her property bearing No.34/4, Second Floor, Gali No.1, West Ghonda, Delhi on 14.02.2014 in favour of applicant bank.

¶23

The defendants executed Acknowledgement of Debt and Securities on 24.09.2015 for outstanding dues with the applicant bank.

¶24

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 regularize the account and interest due to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.06.2016 as per RBI guidelines but defendants neglected to clear the dues, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

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 12.05.2022, 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.

¶26

T.A. No. 594 of 2023

¶27

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 27.07.2016 for Rs.25,81,785/- was issued by the applicant on the defendants and the applicant bank took physical possession of mortgaged property through Court Receiver on 28.08.2017 through Ld. CMM order dated 16.07.2017.

¶28

The defendants entered into One Time Settlement and on payment of Rs.3.00 lacs with the applicant bank and possession of the property was handed over back to the defendants by the applicant bank but they failed to adjust the account as per OTS sanction and was terminated by applicant bank on 03.03.2018. The applicant bank again took physical possession of property on 26.11.2018 and sold the mortgaged property for Rs.16.44 lacs.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Suresh Chand Gautam, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Exhibit A/1, Sanction Letter Exhibit A/2, Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement Exhibit A/3, Cash Credit Agreement Exhibit A/4, Promissory Note Exhibit A/5, Undertaking Exhibit A/6 & A/14, Deed of Guarantee Exhibit A/7 & A/15, Letter dated 14.02.2014 Exhibit A/8, Notice dated 28.11.2014 Exhibit A/9, Letter for Enhancement Exhibit A/10, Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation Exhibit A/11, Cash Credit Agreement Exhibit A/12, Promissory Note Exhibit A/13, Acknowledgement of Debt & Security Exhibit A/16, Legal Notice Exhibit A/17, Certified Statement of Accounts Exhibit A/18.

¶30

T.A. No. 594 of 2023

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,60,896/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Six only) together with pendentelite and future interest @11.40% per annum from the date of filing of this application till its realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶36

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

¶37

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 24.02.2025.

¶38

T.A. No. 594 of 2023

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 24.12.2024

Bank of India v. Sh. Vinod Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Vinod Goswami

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

Ruchi Shukla versus Bank of India

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Rajesh Gupta

Canara Bank versus M/S Anjani Tiles and Sanitary Ware

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ashish Kumar

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hyderabad) versus Sh. Ankur Patahak

Uco Bank versus Ms.Vandana Verma