Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S Neelhans Herbs and Bio Sciences through Its Proprietor- Hanish Ajmera

DRT15 Jan 2025OA/487/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The camp court allowed the bank's original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, ordering defendants to pay principal dues with applicable interest. The court also granted an injunction against property transfers and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Dues of Rs. 80,07,026.92 with interest to be paid; injunction on property transfer; Recovery Certificate under Section 19(2).

Bank of India versus M/S Neelhans Herbs and Bio Sciences… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

I rF-

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶3

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶4

CAMP COURT AT Indore (M.P)

¶5

(Presiding Officer - Hon'ble Shri Itam Niwas Patel)

¶6

Original Application lt{o. -487 /2 0 2 3

¶7

Bank of India, Kanchanbaug, Indore (M.P)

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

I M/s Neelhans Herbs & Bio Sciences, Through its Proprietor-Hanish Ajmera (i) Registered address at 16, II Floor, Dawabazar, Indore (M.P)

¶11

(ii) Factory at Khasra No.5861612 (part) and 5 86172 (part), Industrial Area, Behind BSNL building, Hatod, Indore (M.P)

¶12

2 Hanish Ajmera, S/o Pawan Ajmera, R/o 88 C Special,

¶13

Gandhi Nagar, Indore (M.P) ..... Defendants

¶14

Counsel lbr the Applicant : Shri Shreyas Dubey, Advocate

Defendants

: Ex-parte

JUDGMENT (Dated@o2s)

l. The Applicant-Bank has filed the present original Application u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 15104123 against the Defendants for recovery of Its.80,07 ,026.921- (Rupees Eighty r-ac, Seven Thousand, Twen ty

¶19

¶20

oA 487123

¶21

Six and Paisa^{NinetY Two} only) along with^{interest and other} reliel's as stated.

¶22

'fhe brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defenclant No.1^{through its Proprietor Defendant No.2,the} Applicant Bank^{sanctioned wcl (Stock) of Rs.20 Lac, wcl} (Book Dcbts) of I{s.10 Lac^{whereinmaximum working capital} Limit was Ils.20^{Lac, Term Loan of Rs.65 Lac aggregating} its.it5 Lac on^{04/09117and FITL of Rs.3,64,0801-.In} consideration of sanction^{of credit facilities, the Defendantsin} ad{ition to execution of^{loan documents, have also created} cquitable mortgage^{over the immovableproperty, i.e., Diverted} Land at Khasra No.5^{861612 and 5 861712 (part), IndustrialArea} Behind BSNL Building,^{PHN:1, Hatod,Indore; admeasuring} 0.084 hectares^{(Approx.756 sq. mts). The Defendantsavailed} the oreclit facilities^{and also executedacknowledgmentof debts} letters lastly on^{2610612l. The accountsof the defendants} became irregular^{and they failed to liquidate the outstanding} dues clespite^{issuance of Recall Notice on 27109122 by the} Applicant Bank.^{The Applicant-Bankhas relied upon the} documents^{at Ex. A- 1 to A-24 which were proved by Shri Sunil} Kumar Dhaka,^{Chief Manager.}

¶23

Despite service^{of notice, the Defendantsneither} appeared nor^{filed written statement. They were proceededex-} parle vide order^{dated O4llll24. There is therefore, no reason to} disbelieve the^{contentions of the Bank' Considering the facts of} the case, I^{opine that the Defendantsare jointly and severally} with interest^{and costs} liable to PaY^{the claim amount to}

oA 487123

The Applicant-Bank in its application has claimed interest @11.40%^{p.a. with monthly rests for Cash CreditAccount,} interest @8.25% p.a. with monthly rests for IrITL and interest @11.10%^{p.a. with monthly rests for Term Loanaccount} [wrongly^{mentioned as CashCredit Accountin Para-6(d) of OA} being typographical error is ignored]. However, I feel^{it Iair and} reasonable to grant interest @11.40% p.a. simple in Cash Credit Account, interest @8.25% p.a. simple in FIT[, and^interest @11.10o/o^{p.a. simple in Term Loan account pcndentelitcand} future till realization of the dues. The mortgaged^properlyis liable to be sold for recovery of amount due along^{with the} personal properties and assets of the Del'endants.

¶28

The Original Application is allowed and it^{is orderedas} under-

¶29

i) The Defendants do pay^jointly and severally Rs.80,07,026.921-^(Rupees Eighty Lac, Seven^{Thousand, I'wenty} Six and Paisa Ninety Two only) together with^{pendentelite and} future interest @11.40% p.a. simple in Cash Credit^Account, interest @8.25% p.a. simple in FITL and interesL @1^1.10%p.a. simple in Term Loan account fiom the date of filing ol'the^OA, i.e., 1 5104123, with costs till its realization.

¶30

ii) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged as well as personal properties and assets of the Defendants^for realization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their^{propertics/asscts} without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank.

oA 487123

i '. ,

iii) A l{ecovery^{Certificate be issued u/s 19(22) of} Rccovery of Debts^{and BankruptcyAct. The applicant bank may} file a memo of cost^{within 7 days for preparing Recovery} Certificate.

¶35

Judgment pronounced^{in the oPen} coufi on this^{15th Day of} January, 2025 at Camp Court^Indore. ,r{

¶36

,r{
,7
<br>{'
<br>(Ram lwas Pate l)
Presiding Officer

¶37

Bank of India v. M/S Neelhans Herbs and Bio Sciences through Its Proprietor- Hanish Ajmera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S Neelhans Herbs and Bio Sciences through Its Proprietor- Hanish Ajmera

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 Ms Danil Casual Ware

Uco Bank versus M/S Parmeshwar Industries

State Bank of India versus Kalawati

Bank of India versus Vasant Pandharinath Patil

Central Bank of India versus Shirish Katore

Bank of India versus M/S Sai Ram Manufacturing and Trading