Allowed

State Bank of India v. Priti Narendra Solanki

DRT4 Feb 2025OA/155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery under Section 19 of the RDB Act for Rs. 65.65 lakhs, granting adjusted interest at 8.25% p.a. considering pandemic losses, and restrained the defendants from transferring assets.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 65,65,057.00 with interest at 8.25% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate under S. 19(7); injunction against alienation of assets.

State Bank of India versus Priti Narendra Solanki — Cheque Dishonour | 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

Originol Applicotion No. - 155/22

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Btock B-1, Pujari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Priti Narendra 5o[anki, W/o Shri Narendra Kumar Sotanki

¶9

Shri Narendra Kumar Sotani, S/o Shri Dayal Jee Hari Bhai Solanki

¶10

(Both R/o House No.-1578, Street No.-36, Near Dashera Maidan, Ward No.-'l 1, Shantinagar, Supela, Bhi[ai, Distt.-Durg, C.G. 4900231

¶11

..... Defendants

¶12

Counse[ for the Applicant : Shri Wajid Hyder, Advocate

¶13

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Dated : 04th February, 2025)

¶16

The Appticant'Bank has fiLed the^{present OriginalApplication} u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act on 24101127 against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 65,65,057.00^{(Rupees Sixty FiveLakh, Sixty} Five Thousand and Fifty Seven onty)^{aLong with interest and other reLiefs as} stated.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that^{on the requestof} Defendant No.-1 and 2, the Appticant^{Bank sanctioned Home Loan of Rs'} 34,31 ,5OO/- and Home Loan lnsurance^{Cover of Rs. 1.55 Lakh on 03109119} and Home top-up Loan of^{Rs. 22 Lakhon 04109119.tn considerationof the} sanction of credit facitities^{the Defendants in additionto execution of loan} documents have atso created^{equitabte mortgage over the immovable} property, i.e., Att Part and^parcet of Land/Buitding^{at Ptot No.'2and Part of} Ptot No.-17, Khasra^No.-7961 ,^{Mouza Kohka Ambedkar Nagar, Ward No'-1'1,} Shanti Nagar, lnner Part^{of PH No'-'14/19, R.N.M. Durg-1, Tehsi[& District-} Durg (C.G.), area7400 sq.ft.;^{betongingto DefendantNo'-1'The Defendants} avaited the credit facitities^{and also executedRevival Letters on 25/03171}

¶18

)

¶19

oA t5st22

¶20

but faited to tiquidate the outstanding^{dues despiteissuance of Legal Notice} on 30/12/21 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank^{has retied uponthe} documents at Ex. A-1 to A-13 which were^{proved by Shri ShantanuDasgupta,} Chief Manager.

¶21

ln response to Notice issued to Defendants, the Defendants appeared in person on 02/05173 and on their request time was^grantedfor fiting Written Statement. On 02/06123 Shri D. Adeesh Giri, Advocate, fi[ed his Vakalatnama and Written Statement on behalf of Defendants in the registry but thereafter none appeared for the Defendants on the dates fixed for hearing. Both the Defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05/06/73. ln their Written Statement the Defendants have admitted having availed the credit facitities and execution of loan documents. The main contention was due to Covid Pandemic they had suffered loss in their respective business due to which defautted in repayment. The other contention was the Bank has charged exorbitant rate of interest but this contention is not corroborated with any documentary evidence and is therefore has no force.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case I opine that there is no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. The Defendants are therefore,^jointty and severatty liable to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @9.5% p.a. with monthty rests in Home Loan and SBI Surakhsha TL accounts and interest @10.50% p.a. in Home Loan Top-up OD account. However, considering the fact that due to COVID pandemic the Defendants have incurred loss in their business which was their source of income generation for livetihood and being the reason for defautt in making repayment, I feel it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @8.25% p.a. simpte common in at[ the three accounts pendentelite and future titl reatization of the dues. The mortgaged property is tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due along with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶23

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

¶24

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severatty Rs. 65,65,057.00 (Rupees Sixty Five Lakh, Sixty Five Thousand and Fifty Seven onty) together with pendentetite and. future interest @8.757o per annum simple from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 24 / 01 / 22, with costs titI its reatization.

oA t55122

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to se[[ the mortgaged as wet[^as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization 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^{AppticantBank.}

¶30

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued-u/s 19(72) of^{Recovery of} Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may fite a^memo of^cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶31

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this^{04th Day of February,7075.}

¶32

7t
( Patet)
Presidine Officer

State Bank of India v. Priti Narendra Solanki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Priti Narendra Solanki

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Sati Kewal Ram Traders

State Bank of India versus Dasharath Singh

Ms New Patel Poultry Feed versus Dcb Bank Limited

Mr Raj Engineering and Company versus Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus Neelam Singh

Ms Taj Heavy Engineering Company versus Bank of India