Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Shri Sidhhi Vinayak Plywood

DRT29 Jan 2025OA/461/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Bank's application for recovery of dues. It directed payment of principal, interest, and costs, ordered realization from mortgaged and personal assets, and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 39,79,846.00 with interest; mortgaged and personal assets liable for realization; stay on transfer of assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 19(22).

State Bank of India versus M/S Shri Sidhhi Vinayak Plywood — 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 Application No. - 461 123

¶5

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

¶6

Versus

¶7

01 ) M/s Shri Siddhi Vinayak Plywood, Through its ProprietorShri Gambhir Kumar Sankhi, Ring Road-1, Professor Colony, Sector-1, Raipur (C.G.) 492013

¶8

Shri Gambhir Kumar Sankhi, S/o Shri Gopikishan Sankhi, R/o Gali No.-7, Karan Nagar, New Sahu Atta Chakki, New Changora Bhata, Raipur (C.G.)49201 3 Defendants Counsel for the Applicant : Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶9

JUDGMENT ' (Dated : 29th January,2025\

¶10

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 11/04/23 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 39,79,846.00 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh, Seventy Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fourty Six onty) along with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor Defendant No.-2, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 8 Lakh on 28/12/17 which was renewed on 19/07 121 , Housing Term Loan of Rs. 19.50 Lakh on 16102121 , Term Loan (Suraksha) of Rs. 37,140/- on16/02121 , Term Loan (top-up) of Rs. 5 Lakh on 16/02121 , FITL of Rs. 42,379/- in the year 2020 and FITL of Rs. 87,000/- on 19/07 /21 . ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendants in addition to execution of loan documents have also created equitabte mortgage over the immovable property, i.e., Alt part & parcel of the

¶12

¶13

oA46123

¶14

Land/Buitding on Khata No.-733, Part-Two, Part of Khasra No,-167l3 (Municipal No.-67), Khoobchand Ward No.-67, New Changorabhata, Karan Nagar, Mouza Changorabhata, PHN-105/59, R.N.M. Raipur, Tehsit & DistrictRaipur (C.G.) area 1000 sq.ft.; betonging to Defendant No.-2. The Defendants availed the credit facitities and also executed Revival Letter on 15/12/20 but failed to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legal Notice on 09/02/23 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-19 which were proved by Shri Shantanu Dasgupta, Chief Manager.

¶15

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02105124. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointly and severa[ty tiable to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Applicant-Bank in its application has ctaimed interest @11.25%^p.a. with monthly rests in Cash Credit and two FITLs accounts, interest @9.70% p.a. with monthty rests in Home Term Loan and Suraksha Term Loan accounts and interest @11.35% p.a. with monthty rests in Top-up Term Loan account. However, I feel it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @11.25% p.a. simpte in cash credit, two FITLS and Top-up Term^Loan accounts and interest @9.70% p,a. Simpte in Home Term Loan and Suraksha Term Loan accounts pendentetite and future tit[ reatization of the dues. The mortgaged property is liabte to be sold for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶16

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

¶17

i) The Defendants do pay^jointly and severalty Rs. 39,79,846.00 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh, Seventy Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred and^Fourty Six onLy) together with^pendentetite and^{future [email protected]" p.a.simpte} in cash credit, two FITLs and^{Top-upTerm Loan accountsand interest} @9.70%^{p.a. Simpte in HomeTermLoanand Suraksha Term Loan accounts} from the date of fiting of the^{OA, i.e., 11/04123,with costs titl its} realization.

¶18

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted^{to set[ the mortgaged as wetlas} personal properties and assets of the Defendants^{for reatization of its dues.} The Defendants are hereby^{restrained by means of injunctionfrom}

¶19

oA 461t23

¶20

depleting, transferring, encumbering,^{atienating or in anyway deating with} their properties/ assets without first^{paying the ctaim of the AppticantBank.}

¶21

iii) A Recovery Certificate^{be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of} Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The^{appJicantbank may fite a memoof cost} within 7 days for^{preparingRecoveryCertificate.}

¶22

Judgment^pronounced in the^{open court on this 29th Day of January, 2025'}

¶23

.>.5
'
( Patet)
Presidine Officer

State Bank of India v. M/S Shri Sidhhi Vinayak Plywood

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Shri Sidhhi Vinayak Plywood

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 Maa Hinglaaj Autodeal and Spare

State Bank of India versus M/S Ashok Agency

Icici Bank Limited versus Sarwamangala Sales

Union Bank of India versus Rajput Traders

Ankush Gadwal versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Shree Mahalakshmi Namkin through its Proprietor Rajkumar Sharma versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.