Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sunil Kumar

DRT13 Jan 2025OA/51/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I, Delhi allowed an original application filed by Bank of Barroda against Sunil Kumar for recovery of Rs.30.14 lacs plus interest. The defendant, having failed to appear, was proceeded ex-parte, and the court directed payment with enforcement against hypothecated and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendant to pay Rs.30.14 lacs plus interest and costs within 30 days; recovery recoverable from sale of hypothecated and other properties; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Sunil Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

0.A. No. 51 of 2023

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi
Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma
O.A. No.51 of 2023
Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) ROSARB Branch 1st Fldor, 8718, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 Applicant
Versus
Sunil Kumar s/o Shri Amar Nath Proprietor M/s Stylish Fashion 4374, Gali No.8, Ajeet Nagar Delhi-110031
Also at: 198/2A/1B, Gali No.11, Maniram Mandir Road, Near Kali Mata Mandir Bholanath Nagar, Shandara, Delhi-32
Also at: 3930, Gali No.20, Ajeet Nagar, Delhi-110031
Also at: Shop No.9/6940, Gandhi Nagar Nehru Gall, Bape Di Hatti Balaji Sweet Delhi-110031
Also at: X/102, Pratap Chowk Mohalla Ramnagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31 Defendant
Present: Sh.Umesh Joshi, Counsel for the applicant bank
Date of Institution: 15.12.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 13.01.2025

¶3

O.A. No. 51 of 2023

¶4

FINAL ORDER

¶5

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 15.12.2022 through Sh.Pawan Kumar Pandey, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,14,336.44 (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Six & paisa Forty Four only) as on 05.12.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum and @2% penal interest from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization with costs.

¶6

The brief facts of the case that on the request of Sh.Sunil Kumar being sole proprietor of M/s Stylish Fashion in the business of manufacturing of Kurties etc., the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.20.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty lacs only) on 20.10.2020 under MSME scheme @9.60% rate of interest per annum with monthly rests plus @2% penal interest against hypothecation of stock, receivables and book debts which was enhanced to Rs.27.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs only) on 17.07.2021 @8.85% interest plus @2% penal interest covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶7

In order to secure the repayment of credit facility, the defendants executed attestation memo dated 17.07.2021, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Letter of Sole Proprietorship, Letter of Undertaking, Annexure I for CGTMSE, Power of Attorney, Declaration cum Undertaking cum Authority, Composite Jndertaking cum Declaration and Undertaking for cd-

¶8

O.A. No. 51 of 2023

¶9

Unconditional Cancellation of Undrawn Commitments all dated 17.07.2021 with the applicant bank.

¶10

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 11.04.2022 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 09.07.2022 but no response, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶11

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 16.10.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶12

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 07.05.2022 was issued to the defendant calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding dues with the applicant bank.

¶13

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar Pandey, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notification Mark-A, Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/1(OSR), Application Form Exhibit AW1/2, Form No.135 Exhibit AW1/3, GST Registration MarkB(colly), Sanction Letter Exhibit AW1/4 & AW1/18, Attestation

¶14

set

¶15

O.A. No. 51 of 2023

¶16

Memo Exhibit AW1/5 & AW1/19, Letter of Sole Proprietorship Exhibit AW1/6 & AW1/23, Demand Promissory Note Exhibit AW1/7 & AW1/20, Letter of Continuing Security Exhibit AW1/8 & AW1/21, Composite Hypothecation Agreement Exhibit AW1/9 & AW1/22, Letter of Undertaking Exhibit AW1/10 & AW1/24, Declaration cum Undertaking Exhibit AW1/11 & Exhibit AW1/28, Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/12 & Exhibit AW1/27, Undertaking for Unconditional Cancellation of Undrawn Commitments Exhibit AW1/13 & AW1/26 & AW1/30, Annexure I Exhibit AW1/14 & AW1/25, Composite Undertaking cum Declaration Exhibit AW1/15 & AW1/29, Form 135 Exhibit AW1/16 & AW1/17, Various Letters Mark C (Colly), Notice u/s 13(2) Exhibit AW1/31, Legal Notice Exhibit AW1/32,(colly), Statement of Account with Certificate under Bankers' Book Evidence Act Exhibit AW1/33(colly).

¶17

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶18

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond easonable doubts.

¶19

In the light of the above discussions, the Original pplication deserves to be allowed.

¶20

O.A. No. 51. of 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.30,14,336.44 (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Six & paisa Forty Four only) together with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum from date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets including Stocks and Book Debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶23

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶24

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.03.2025.

¶25

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶26

�oi)-6-›-A (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶27

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 13.01.2025

Bank of Baroda v. Sunil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sunil Kumar

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

State Bank of India versus Ms Royal Construction

State Bank of India versus Ms Payal Collection

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Rohit Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

Mukesh Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sbs Concepts Limited

Veena Rani versus Punjab National Bank