Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Sarwamangala Sales

DRT21 Jan 2025OA/321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed ICICI Bank's application for recovery of dues exceeding Rs. 44.84 million. The Court held both the company and two directors jointly liable, restricting one director's liability to share value. The bank was granted injunctions against property disposal.

What did the court decide?

Order for joint and several payment of Rs. 44,84,871 plus interest at 9% p.a.; power to sell hypothecated vehicles and personal assets; Recovery Certificate.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sarwamangala Sales — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 Application No. - i21122

¶5

lClCl Bank Ltd., Vyapar Vihar, Bitaspur (C.G.)

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) Sarwamangta Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.-17, 18, SRTC Comptex, Private Bus Stand, Bitaspur^(C.G.)495001

¶9

Gyan Prakash Lath, 5/o Shri Arun Kumar Lath, SRTC Complex, Shop No.-18, Private Bus Stand, Bitaspur^(C.G.)495001

¶10

Shabd Prakash Lath, 5/o Shri Arun Kumar Lath, House No.-24l871, Nirata Nagar, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.)495001

¶11

Defendants

¶12

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

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Dated : 21't January, 2025)

¶15

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^{presentOriginal} AppIication u/s't9 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act on 25102122} against the Defendants for recovery of Rs.^44,84,87'l '00^{(Rupees Fourty} Four Lakh, Eighty Four Thousand, Eight Hundred^{and Seventy One onty)} atong with interest and other retiefs^as stated.

¶16

The brief facts bf the case are that^{on the requestof} Defendant No.-1 through its^{Directors Defendant No.-2 and 3, the Applicant} Bank sanctioned Used Commerciat^{VehicteLoan for personalpurposeof Rs'} 43.20 Lakh on 04t07 /18 and^{in considerationof thesamethe Defendant No'-} 1 through its directors as applicant^{for loan and Defendant No.-2 as co-} appticant have executed^{requisiteloan documents. The Defendants} hypothecated vehicles^LP 912^{EX 4920 bearing RegistrationNo.-CG'1 3Q/0339,} LP 912 TATA Bus bearing^{RegistrationNo.-CG10Q/0340,LP 912 EXl4920} bearing Registration^{No.-CG'10G/1013,LP 912 EX 4920 bearingRegistration}

¶17

¶18

oA321122

¶19

No.-CG10G/1014 and^{Bus SkootLP 410/34 bearing RegistrationNo'"} ccloG/0986 in^{favour of the Appticant-Bank.TheDefendantsavailedthe} credit facilities but^{faited to tiquidate the outstandingdues despiteissuance} of Recatt Notice^{on 22101 /21 by the AppticantBank. The Applicant-Bankhas} relied upon the documents^{at Ex.A-1 to A-9 whichwere proved by Shri Amit} Sinha, Manager.

¶20

Despite service of notice,^{the Defendants neitherappeared nor} filed written statement.^{They were proceededex-partevide order dated} 16/03123. Perusal of^{pLeadings and documents reveats that Defendant No.-3} has executed the documents^{in the capacityas Directorof DefendantNo.-'l} Company and did not executed^{documents in her personal capacity.0n the} other hand Defendant No.-2 executed^{documents in the capacity as Director} as wetl as Co-apptication.^{Thus, white the tiabitity of DefendantNo. -3 is} restricted to the value of shares/assets^{of DefendantNo'-1 Companyin her} hotding, the tiabitity of Defendant^{No'-2 is coextensive with the tiabitityof} Defendant No.-1 Company. Considering^{the facts of the case, I opine that} the Defendants are^jointly and^{severatly liable to pay the ctaim amount} together with interest and costs.^{The Appticant-Bankin its appticationhas} claimed interest as Per the agreement^{date but has not specifiedthe} apptticabte rate of interest. However,^{I feel it fair and reasonabteto grant} interest @9.00%^p.a. simpte^{pendentetite and future ti[[ realizationof the} dues. The mortgaged^{propertyis liable to be sotd for recoveryof amount} due atong with the^{personalpropertiesand assets of the Defendants.}

¶21

The Originat Apptication is a[lowed and^{it is orderedas under-}

¶22

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty and severatly Rs. 44,84,871 .00} (Rupees Fourty Four Lakh, Eighty Four Thousand,^{Eight Hundred and Seventy} One onty) together with^{pendentetite and future interest@9'00%per annum} simpte from the date of filing^{of the OA, t.e.,25102/22,with costs titl its} reatization. The tiabitity of^{DefendantNo.-3 is restricted to the vatue of} Shares/Assets of Defendant^{No.'1Companyin her hotding.}

¶23

ii) The Applicant Bank is entitted^{to setl the hypothecatedvehictes} LP 912 EX 4920 bearing Registration^{No'-CG13Q/0339,lP 912 TATABus} bearing Registration No.-CG10Q/0340,^{LP 912 EXl4920bearing Registration} No.-CG10G/1013, LP 912 EX^{4920 bearing RegistrationNo.'CG10G/1014and} Bus Skoot LP 410134 bearing^{Registration No.'CG10G/0986 as we[[as}

¶24

.,)

¶25

oA32122

¶26

personalpropertiesandassetsoftheDefendantNo.-land2forrealization of its dues. The^{DefendantNo.-'l and 2 are hereby restrained by meansof} injunction from^{depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienatingor in any} waydeatingwiththeirproperties/assetswithoutfirstpayingtheclaimofthe Applicant Bank.^{The Defendant No.-3 is atsoherebyrestrained by means of} injunction from^{depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienatingor in any} way dea[ing with^{the properties/ assets of Defendant No'-1Companywithout} first paying the^{ctaim of the ApplicantBank'}

¶27

iii) A Recovery^{Certificatebe issueduls 19(22\ of Recoveryof} Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act. The appticant bank may fite a memoof cost} within 7 days for^{preparingRecovery Certificate'}

¶28

Judgment P ronounced^{in the open court on thjs 21't Day of January'2025'}

¶29

o )
1
am N was teI )
Presid ine Off icer

Icici Bank Limited v. Sarwamangala Sales

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Sarwamangala Sales

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

Rajeev Shrivastava Son of Om Prakash Shrivastava versus Bank of Baroda

Ms Shekhani Traders versus Bank of Baroda

Mahashkti Diary Frim through Ramobai Verma versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Ashok Agency

Canara Bank versus M/S Maa Hinglaaj Autodeal and Spare

Union Bank of India versus Rajput Traders