Dismissed

Canara Bank v. M S Hotel the Vedanta Sara

DRT28 May 2025OA/35/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT Jaipur admitted a composite claim of Rs. ~8.83 Cr as NPA liability. Court awarded 8.20% simple interest from the NPA date, computed on a diminishing principal basis after future recoveries. Applicant undertook to clear liability in 30 days, resulting in disposal without recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Admitted liability of Rs. 8,83,29,291.64 with 8.20% simple interest from 01.12.2020 on reducing principal; recovery certificate withheld due to undertaking to clear debt in 30 days.

Canara Bank versus M S Hotel the Vedanta Sara — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 35

¶3

Case No. OA/35/2022

¶4

CANARA BANK Vs M S HOTEL THE VEDANTA SARA .

¶5

Date: 28.05.2025.

¶6

Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:

¶7

Shri Yash Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant

¶8

Shri Bhrigu Sharma, Counsel for the Defendants

¶9

In this matter, an Original Application has been filed for an amount of Rs. 9,18,95,469.86/- on 19.12.2021.

¶10

This OA is a composite OA for six accounts. Pleadings in this matter are complete. There are various objections being raised by the defendants herein and one of the major objection is that they have continuously paid money to the bank. However, the bank has declared account as NPA on different dates and two accounts were never declared as NPA.

¶11

He submits that this is not in conscience with RBI guidelines on NPA and once one account of the borrower is NPA all the accounts have to be declared NPA.

¶12

In this matter, an Affidavit was called from the bank asking them the details and the date of NPA. They were directed to take the first date of NPA and give the book liability in all six accounts. In the affidavit which came to be filed, the date of NPA is marked as 30.11.2020 with a liability of in all account Rs. 8,83,29,291.64/- This figure has been objected by the defendants herein stating that according to them Rs. 8,75,08,738.62/- is the liability as on 30.11.2020.

¶13

Admittedly, more than approximately Rs. 7.50 Crore have already been paid during the proceedings. The defendant submits that they do not litigate the matter in view of the family circumstances. Admit the liability of Rs. 8,75,08,738.62/- as on 30.11.2020 and requests the Tribunal to grant 6% interest from the date of NPA on this account.

¶14

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶15

However, the figure arrived at on oath by the bank as on 30.11.2020 is considered as an admitted amount to which the applicant has no objection.

¶16

Since the admission is being made, The Tribunal is passing the decree. The bank has to be compensated with minimum CLR, i.e. the cost of lending & not merely cost of the fund which is 8.20%. To balance the equity of Rs. 8.00 Lac as above and looking into the conduct that during the pendency more than Rs. 7.50 Crore have been paid, the Tribunal is of the opinion that interest to be charged on Rs. 8,83,29,291.64/- shall be 8.20% after the date of NPA, i.e. 01.12.2020.

¶17

The interest is simple, since recovery deposited cannot be reversed, a notional chart shall be drawn by the bank taking the liability as Rs. 8,83,29,291.64/- as on 30.11.2020 and in the next column, they will put the recoveries made reducing the principal amount. In the third column balance principal amount will come and in the last column, they will calculate the interest for the days for which the principal liability stood outstanding @ 8.20%. This means first entire principal outstanding amount will be paid, then the interest will be paid.

¶18

At this juncture, counsel for the bank submits that at least court fee deposited by them may be paid to them

¶19

At this stage, Counsel for the applicant submits that recovery certificate may not be issued and undertaken to clear this liability to within 30 days. Accordingly no RC be issued. OA stands disposed as decreed.

¶20

File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶21

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

Canara Bank v. M S Hotel the Vedanta Sara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M S Hotel the Vedanta Sara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank versus M/S Derby Textile Ltd.

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Davinder Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Jitendra Tyagi

Uco Bank versus Ram Kumar Verma

Ms Baba Khem Dass Shiksha Samiti versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Sahab Ram