Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Jss Tradexprivate Limited

DRT6 Jun 2024TA/740/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Karur Vysya Bank for recovery of Rs.3.91 crore against four respondents, finding the case proven beyond reasonable doubts and authorising issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs.3.91 crore along with interest and costs; recovery certificate to be issued to Recovery Officer.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Jss Tradexprivate Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.740 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.740 of 2022

¶5

Karur Vysya Bank D-10, Kamla Nagar Delhi-110009 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

JSS Tradex Private Limited Regd. Office: 100/2/2, Pole No.MKDN889 Mundka, New Delhi-110041

¶8

Also at:

¶9

House No.14 and 15, Ist floor Pocket C-4, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi-85

¶10

Sh.Hemant Kaushik s/o Niranjan Lal Kaushik R/o 2236, Gali Anar, Kinari Bazar Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006

¶11

Sh.Pawan Kumar s/o Bhagwan Sharma RZ-1101B/9, Gali No.12, Sadh Nagar, South West Palam New Delhi-110045

¶12

Sh.Bhagwan Sharma H/o Late Mrs.Nirmala Devi RZ-1101B/9, Gali No.12, Sadh Nagar, South West Palam New Delhi-110045 Defendants

¶13

Present: Sh.Sumeet Batra, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Institution: 31.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 06.06.2024

¶15

T.A. No.740 of 2022

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 31.05.2021 through Shri Atul Agarwal, 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.3,91,03,748.15 (Rupees Three Crore Ninety One Lacs Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Eight and Paisa Fifteen only) as on 31.03.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest ©13.95% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant no.1 through defendant no.1 and 2 being directors, the applicant bank sanctioned cash credit facility for Rs.200.00 lacs (Rupees Two Crores only) which was renewed and enhanced to Rs.300.00 lacs on 28.09.2018 ©12.05% interest with monthly rests for working capital requirement for business of shredding and cutting of metal sheets. The loan facilities were sanctioned against hypothecation of current assets, book debts and collateral securities of 3 properties owned by defendant no.1, 3 and mother of defendant no.3 Late Smt.Nirmala Devi & wife of defendant no.5. The defendant no.2, 3, Late Smt.Nirmala Devi mother of defendant no.3 & wife of defendant no.5 along with defendant no.5 stood as guarantors for the credit facility availed by defendant no.1.

¶19

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant No.1 through its directors being defendant no.2, 3 and 4 executed Demand Promissory Note, Take Delivery

¶20

¶21

T.A. No.740 of 2022

¶22

Letter cum Continuity Letter, Revival Letter acknowledging its liability, Acknowledgement of Debt, Supplemental Agreement for Enhancement of Working Capital Limits, Power of Attorney for Collections of Bills, Book Debts etc., Agreement for Secured overdraft, Agreement for Substitution of Securities with the applicant bank. Further, defendant no.2 to 4 and mother of Defendant No.3 Late Mrs.Nirmala Devi & wife of defendant no.5 executed Acknowledgement of Debt from Guarantors, Agreement of Guarantee and Letter of Undertaking on 29.09.2018.

¶23

To secure the credit facilities, defendant no.1 through its directors, hypothecated entire current assets including stock of HR/CR metal coils, flats/strip of rolled metal and receivables and book debts in favour of applicant bank as security by executing agreement for secured overdraft on 29.09.2018. Further, the defendants created equitable mortgage of following properties by executing confirmation of deposit of title documents on 30.07.2016:

¶24

i) Shop cum residential built up property situated at No.1652/9, Kath Mandi, Rewari, Haryana admsg. 350 sq.yds, owned by defendant no.4 by depositing original sale deed dated 27.12.2017, original registered WILL dated 07.12.2007. Certified copy of Court decree dated 20.02.1986 and death certificate dated 25.03.2011;

¶25

ii) Plot No.12, Gali no.2, Sector-5 Road, Khata No.637, Khasra No.2369 '0-16' and 2370 'I-6' near Shitala Mata Temple, Gurgaon, Haryana owned by defendant no.3 by depositing Original Special Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1994, Original Sale Deed

¶26

T.A. No.740 of 2022

¶27

dated 02.06.1994, Original Sale Deed dated 09.04.2009 and Copy of Intakal dated 29.01.2016.

¶28

iii) Plot No.12B, Gali No.2, Sector-5 Road, Khata No.938, Khasra No.2369 '0-16' and 2370 '1-6' near Shitala Mata Temple, Gurgaon, Haryana, owned by Late Smt.Nirmala Devi, mother of defendant no.3 & wife of defendant no.5 by depositing Original Special Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1994, Original Sale Deed dated 02.06.1994, Original Sale Deed dated 09.04.2009 and Copy of Intakal dated 29.01.2016.

¶29

It has been submitted by the applicant that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to make the payment of interest and to comply with the terms and conditions despite request letters. Ultimately, the account was declared NPA on 30.08.2019 by the applicant bank as per RBI guidelines. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶30

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 11.09.2019 for Rs.3,03,66,297.74 and on 03.03.2021 for Rs.3,85,87,573.15 was issued by the applicant bank but defendants failed to regularize the account. The defendant no.1 executed acknowledgement of debt & security dated 29.09.2018 with applicant bank.

¶31

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 04.04.2024, the

¶32

¶33

T.A. No.740 of 2022

¶34

defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have failed to file written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets.

¶35

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Atul Agarwal, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney Exb.AW1/1, Sanction Letter Exb.AW1/2, 4 & 5, Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deed Exb.AW1/3(colly), Extension of Mortgage Exb.AW1/6(colly), Original Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deed Exb.AW1/7, Sale Deeds Exb.AW1/8 to 11, Agreement for Secured Overdraft Exb.AW1/12, Demand Promissory Note Exb.AW1/13, Take Deliver Letter cum Continuity Letter Exb.AW1/14, Revival Letter Exb.AW1/15, Acknowledgement of Debt Exb.AW1/16 & 17, Agreement of Guarantee Exb.AW1/18, Supplemental Agreement Exb.AW1/19, Power of Attorney Exb.AW1/20, Agreement for Substitution of securities Exb.AW1/21, Notices u/s 13(2) Exb.AW1/22(colly), Statement of Account Exb.AW1/23.

¶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

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.

¶38

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

Yd-

T.A. No.740 of 2022

ORDER

(I) 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.3,91,03,748.15 (Rupees Three Crore Ninety One Lacs Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Eight and Paisa Fifteen only) as on 31.03.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @13.95% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs from the sale of hypothecated entire current assets including stock of HR/CR metal coils, flats/strip of rolled metal and receivables and book debts and from sale of mortgaged properties as under:

¶43

i) Shop curn residential built up property situated at No.1652/9, Kath Mandi, Rewari, Haryana admsg. 350 sq.yds, owned by defendant no.4;

¶44

ii) Plot No.12, Gali no.2, Sector-5 Road, Khata No.637, Khasra No.2369 '0-16' and 2370 'I-6' near Shitala Mata Temple, Gurgaon, Haryana owned by defendant: no.3;

¶45

iii Plot No.12B, Gali No.2, Sector-5 Road, Khata No.938, Khasra No.2369 '0-16' and 2370 '1-6' near Shitala Mata Temple, Gurgaon, Haryana, owned by Late Smt.Nirmala Devi, mother of defendant no.3 & wife of defendant no.5.

¶46

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

¶47

T.A. No.740 of 2022

¶48

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

¶49

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 05.08.2024.

¶50

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

¶51

5'01— \rb\ "1 (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶52

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 06.06.2024

Karur Vysya Bank v. Jss Tradexprivate Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Jss Tradexprivate Limited

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

Akash Kanubhai Domadiya versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Vishwas Fuel Station

Union Bank of India versus Niteshkumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Tkb Educational Initiatives Pvt. Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus Jeetin Gupta

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Mukesh Goswami