Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Prakash Trading Co.

DRT10 Feb 2025OA/1071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

witex 1071/23, the Debt Recovery Tribunal Jabalpur allowed the Bank of Baroda's application seeking recovery of approximately Rs. 2.17 crore against several defendants who availed credit facilities but failed to repay. The court adjusted interest rates deemed fair and deemed the mortgaged properties liable for sale.

What did the court decide?

Order directed defendants to pay Rs. 2,17,31,418.19 plus interest and costs; imposed injunction on disposal of assets; directed issuance of Recovery Certificate u/s 19(2) RD&BT Act.

Bank of Baroda versus Prakash Trading Co. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Original Appticotion No.^' 1071/23

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Gurudwara, Kawardha, Distt-Kabirdham^(C.G. )

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Ve rsu s

¶8

M/s Prakash Trading Co., Through its ProprietorSuresh Kumar Gupta, R/o Near Otd Mandi, Kawardha, Distrit-Kabirdham (C.G.) 491995; ii) Near Guru Govind Singh Chowk, Kawardha, Distt.'Kabirdham^{(C.G.) 491995}

¶9

Suresh Kumar Gupta 03) Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o Aatmaram Gupta 04) Manoj Kumar Gupta, 5/o Aatmaram Gupta

¶10

Neeraj Kumar Gupta, S/o Lt Rajkumar Gupta 06) Sharada Gupta, W/o Suresh Gupta

¶11

(2 to 6 R/o Gupta Para, Ward No.'14, Kawardha, Distt.-Kabirdham, C.G. 491995)

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant : Shri Shreyas Dubey,^Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT loated^{: torrebruary,2025)}

¶15

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^present Original^Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act on 16108/23against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,17,31,418.19^{(Rupees Two Crore,Seventeen} Lakh, Thirty One Thousand, Four Hundred Eighteen and^{PaisaNineteenon[y)} along with interest and other retiefs^as stated.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that on the^{request of} Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Defendant No.-2,^{the App[icant Bank}

¶17

¶18

oA 107U23

¶19

sanctioned cash credit Limit of Rs. 70 Lakh on 03/0g/13 which was subsequently enhanced upto Rs. 150 Lakh and renewed on 05/0g/17, additional Limit of Rs. 15 Lakh during covid-19 on 12/05/20, BGECLS of Rs. 30 Lakh on 12/06/20 and FITL of Rs. 19.64 Lakh on 21 /10/21 . tn consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant No.-1 & 2 as borrower and Defendant No.-3 to 6 as guarantors in addition to execution of loan documents have atso created equitabte mortgage over the immovable properties, i.e.,

¶20

i) Residential Land and Buitding situated at Nazut sheet No.-17, Ptot No.-366l1, Btock No.-5, Ward No.-26, Guru Govind Singh Chowk, admeasuring 121 .12 sq.mts, situated at District-Kabeerdham (C.G.); belonging to Defendant No.-2;

¶21

ii) Shop and buitding at NazuI Sheet No.17, ptot No.-30712, Btock No.-5, admeasuring 17.17 sq.mts.,^,1g4.75 sq,ft., near Otd Mandi, District Kabeerdham (C.G.); betonging to Defendant No._3 & 4;

¶22

iii) shop and buitding at Nazut sheet No.-17, ptot No.-30713, Btock No.-5, admeasuring 20.81 sq.mts., near Otd Mandi, District_Kabirdham; betonging to Defendant No.-2 & 5;

¶23

iv) Shop and buitding at Nazut Sheet No.-17, Ptot No.-30711, Btock No.^-5, admeasuring 22.40 sq.mts, near Otd Mandi, District- Kabeerd ham (c.G. ); betonging to Defendant No.-2 & 5;

¶24

v) Residential Land and Buitding situated at KH No._169/57, 58, 59,60, Ward No.-1, p.H. No.-.1g, Ramnagar, Kawardha; betonging to Defendant No. -6.

¶25

The Defendants avaited the credit facitities and atso executed Revival Letter (Letter of Acknowtedgement of Debt) on zg/or/20 but did not adhere with the financial disciptine. The accounts were ctassified as NpA and the Defendants faited to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Recatl Notice on 11105123 and initiation of action under the securitisation Act by the Applicant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex' A-1 to A-5g which were proved by shri Jitender Singh, Chief Manager.

¶26

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03107 /24' There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the

¶27

¶28

oA 1071123

¶29

Bank. Considering the facts of the case, r opine that the Defendants are jointly and severatty liable to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs' The Applicant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @13.20% p.a. with monthly rests in cash credit account, interest @11.20% p.a. in term loan account, interest @12.35% p,a. with monthty rests in BGECL (Rs. 15 Lakh) account, interest @9.25% p.a. in BGECL (30 Lakh) account and interest @9.75% p.a. in FlrL account. However, I feet it fair and reasonable to grant interest @12% p.a. simpte in cash credit account and BGECL (Rs. 15 Lakh) account, interest @11.20% p.a. simpte in term toan account, interest @9.75% p.a. simpte in BGECL (Rs. 30 Lakh) account and interest @9.75% p.a. simple in FlrL account pendentetite and future tilt reatization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶30

The Original Apptication is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶31

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severatty Rs. 2,17,31 ,4tg.t9 (Rupees Two Crore, Seventeen Lakh, Thirty One Thousand, Four Hundred Eighteen and Paisa Nineteen onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @12% p.a. simpte in cash credit account and BGECL (Rs. 15 Lakh) account, interest @11.70% p.a. simpte in term toan account, interest @9.25% p.a. simpte in BGECL (Rs. 30 Lakh) account and interest @9.75% p.a. simpte in FITL account from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e.,16/Og/73, with costs t itI its reati2ation.

¶32

ii) The Applicant Bank is entitted to sett the mortgaged as wetl as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for real.ization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way deating with their properties/ assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶33

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may fite a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶34

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 1Oth Day of February, 7025

¶35

( m asPatet)^O' Presidine Officer

Bank of Baroda v. Prakash Trading Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Prakash Trading Co.

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bricem Buildcon

Bank of India versus Ravindra

Ms Choudhary Enterprises versus Canara Bank

Central Bank of India versus Rahul Shende

Bank of India versus Dhannu Pariwale

Shri Sharad Jetha versus Icici Bank Limited