Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S Jogi Transport through Its Prop- Kuldeep Singh

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/1463/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Bank of India against M/s Jogi Transport and Mr. Kuldeep Singh for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 80.69 lakh along with interest and grant of injunction. The grant of interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

The defendants directed to pay Rs. 80,69,171.27 with interest; injunction imposed on disposal of assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of India versus M/S Jogi Transport through Its Prop… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

CONTD. ORDER. SHEET

PAGE NO

CASE NO

DATE OESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER REMARK
oA 1463/22
77t07 /75 Judgment pronounced in the Open Court Camp at
Raipur. Copy of Judgment be issued to the Parties as
per rutes. Record be consigned to the Record Room.
[.ltrr*r [sl.,r"r,,
(Ra atet)
lr- |1t.rl-t)L)
Presiding officer
DRT : Jabatpur
Camp Court: Raipur
F"=^'-

¶5

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶6

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶7

cAttP couRT AT RATPUR (C.G.)

¶8

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Pate[)

¶9

Original Applicotion No. - 1463/22

¶10

Bank of lndia, Bhitai, Durg (C.G.)

¶11

Appticant

¶12

Versus

¶13

M/s Jogi Transport,

¶14

01 ) Through its ProprietorMr. Kuldeep Singh, Transport Nagar, Durg (C.G.)

¶15

Mr. Kuldeep Singh,

¶16

S/o Late Batwant 5ingh,

¶17

R/o House No.-412, Patankar Colony, Opposite Sahu Dairy, Santrawadi, Durg (C.G.) 491001 ..... Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Subh Choudha,^Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Dated : 22'd July,2025)

¶21

The Applicant-Bank has fited the^{present OriginalApptication} u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act on 74111122against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 80,69,171.27^{(RupeesEighty Lakh, SixtyNine} Thousand, One Hundred Seventy One and Paisa^{Twenty Sevenonty)atong} with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on^{the requestof} Defendant No.-l through its Proprietor^{Defendant No.-2,the Appticant Bank} sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of^{Rs.20 Lakh and on 29108/17,Term Loan-l of} Rs. 31.57 Lakh on 31 107/17 and Term^{Loan-ll of Rs. 31.57 Lakh on 03110118} in consideration of the same the^{Defendantsexecuted requisiteloan} documents. The Defendants availed^{the credit facititiesand also executed} Letter of Acknowledgment of Debt/Securities^{on 07/09120but faitedto} tiquidate the outstanding dues^{despiteissuanceof Noticeon 01/05/18by the} Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank^{has relied uponthe documents at ExA-1} to A"37 which were^{proved by Shri SarojKumar Mishra} ,^{ChiefManager.}

¶23

¶24

oA 1463122

¶25

Despite service of notice, the Defendants^{neitherappeared nor} filed written statement. They were^{proceededex-parte vide order dated} 06111/24. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve^{the contentionsof the} Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that^{the Defendantsare} jointly and severatty [iabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication^{has ctaimedinterest} @10.40%^p.a. with monthty^{rests in CC account and Term Loan-laccount and} interest @10.60% p.a. with monthly rests for Term Loan-ll account. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @10.40% p.a. simpte in CC and Term Loan-l accounts and interest @10.60% p.a. simpte in Term Loan-ll account pendentelite and future titl realizat'ion of the dues. The personal properties and assets of the Defendants are tiabte to be sold for recovery of amount due.

¶26

The OriginaI Application is atlowed and it is ordered as under-

¶27

i) The Defendants do pay^jointty and severally Rs, 80,69,171.27 (Rupees Eighty Lakh, Sixty Nine Thousand, One Hundred Seventy One and Paisa Twenty Seven onty) together with pendentetite and future interest @10.40%^p.a. simpte in CC and Term Loan-l accounts and interest @10.60% p.a. simple in Term Loan-ll account from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 74111/22, with costs titl its reatization.

¶28

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to setl the personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Applicant Bank.

¶29

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.

¶30

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 22nd Day of Juty, 2025 at Camp Court Raipur.

¶31

'7' v, m 5 atet) Presidinq Officer

Bank of India v. M/S Jogi Transport through Its Prop- Kuldeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S Jogi Transport through Its Prop- Kuldeep Singh

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

Central Bank of India versus Shri Madhusudan Singh

State Bank of India versus Kishor Shopping Mall Private Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus M/s Pitamber Filing Station, through Its Proprietor- Shri Anil Kumar Singh

Central Bank of India versus M/S Polytech India through Its Partners Sonam Agrawal , Yashvardhan Agrawal

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shambhavi Agencies through Its Propreitor Praveen Padmaker

Uco Bank versus Pusha Rajesh Jha