Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Raj Laxmi Agro Services

DRT14 Feb 2025OA/811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a loan amount. The Defendants failed to appear. The Tribunal allowed the application, directed payment of dues with interest, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate under Section 19(2) of the RDB Act.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 72,11,164.40 with interest at 10.45% per annum simple. Issuance of Recovery Certificate u/s 19(2) of RDB Act. Injunction against transfer of assets.

Union Bank of India versus Raj Laxmi Agro Services — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL JABALPU R

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Original Applicotion No. - 811124

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, Asset Recovery Branch, Gurunank Market, Russel Chowk, Napier Town, Jabatpur (M.P.)

¶6

..... Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) M/s Raj Laxmi Agro Services, Prop.-Shatini Pathak, H.No.-24, Near New Tehsi[, Vittage-Supeta, Post-Jiyawan, Tehsit- Deosar, District-Singrauti, M.P. 486881

¶9

Shatini Pathak,

¶10

W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak

¶11

1. Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak, S/o Shri Vishwamitra Pathak

¶12

(2 & 3 R/o H.No.-24, Ward No.-7, Near New Tehsit, Jiyawan, Singrauti, M.P. 486881 )

¶13

1. Shri Vishwamitra Pathak, S/o Shri Pyarelal Pathak R/o H.No.-24, Ward No.-117, Near Rent House, Vittage-Supeta, Jiyawan, Singrauti, M.P. 486881

¶14

Heerakati Pathak, W/o Vishwamitra Pathak,

¶15

R/o Vittage-Supela, Post-Jiyawan, Tehsit-Deosar, Distt-Singrauti, M.P. 486881 Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Adamya Bajpai, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Dated : 14th February, 2025)

¶19

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Original Application uls 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 14106/24 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 72,11,164.40 (Rupees Seventy Two Lakh, Eteven Thousand, One Hundred Sixty Four and Paisa Fourty on[y) along with interest and other reliefs as stated.

¶20

¶21

oA 8l l/24

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the^requestof Defendant No.-1, the Appticant Bank sanctioned^{Term Loan of Rs' 130 Lakh} on 06104118. ln consideration of the^{sanctionof credit facitity the} Defendant No.-1 as borrower and Defendant^No.-2 to^{5 as guarantorsin} addition to execution of loan documents^{have also createdequitabte} mortgage over the immovabte^properties betonging to^{Defendant No.-2, 4} and 5, i.e.,

¶23

i) Land and Building situated at Aragi Mouza, Gram Jiyawan,^RNM' Sarodha, Patwari Hatka No.-15, Khata No.-699, Tehsit'Deosar,^District' Singrauli, bearing Aragi Khasra No.-23l8/2, area 1.200 hectare; ii) Land and Buitding situated at Gram Jiyawan, Patwari Halka No.-7, Khata No.-402, Tehsit-Deosar, District-Singrauti, bearing Land Khasra No.-26l3 area 0.'173 hectare, Khasra No.-27 admeasuring 0.327 hect.; Khasra No.-26l1 admeasuring 0.173 hectare, total area 0.673 hectare;

¶24

iii) Land and buitding situated at Gram-Supeta, Patwari HatkaSupeta, Khata No.-35, RNM-Gird, Rin Pustika No.-H82372, Tehsit-Deosar, Distt.-Singrauli, bearing Land Khasra No.-521l1 admeasuring 0.020 hectare and Land Khasra No.-52211 admeasuring 0.020 hectare, total area 0.040 heclare.

¶25

The Defendants avaited the credit facitities but faited to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Notice on 10105124 by the Appticant Bank. The Applicant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-15 which were proved by Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sen'ior Branch Manager,

¶26

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12/11/24. There is theiefore, no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty tiabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its application has ctaimed^interest @10.45%^p.a. with monthty^{rests, However, I feel it fair and reasonabteto} grant interest @"10.45% p.a. simple pendentetite and future ti[[ realization of the dues. The mortgaged^properties are liabte to^{be sold for recoveryof} amount due atong with the^{personalpropertiesand assets of the Defendants.}

¶27

The Originat Apptication is atlowed and^{it is orderedas under'}

¶28

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty} and severatty^Rs.72,11 ,164.40 (Rupees Seventy Two Lakh, Eteven Thousand, One Hundred^{Sixty Four and}

¶29

¶30

oA 8 I 1/24

¶31

Paisa Fourty only) together with^pendentelite and future interest @10.45% per annum simple from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 14/06/24, wilh costs ti[[ its rea[ization.

¶32

ii ) The Applicant Bank is entitted to se[[ 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} depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienating^{or in any way deating with} their properties / assets without first^{paying the ctaim of the AppticantBank.}

¶33

iii) A Recovery Certificate be^issued u/s^{19 (27) of Recoveryof} Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The applicant bank^{may fite a memo of cost} within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶34

Judgment pronounced in the open^{court on this 14th Day of February,2075.}

¶35

Ni P )
n $
$^

Union Bank of India v. Raj Laxmi Agro Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Raj Laxmi Agro Services

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

Idbi Bank versus Gurmeet

Hdfc Bank versus Kunwar Pushpendra Singh

Idbi Bank versus Satyawan

Ms Balaji Bakery versus Indian Bank

Kaila Devi Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Idbi Bank versus Shubha Bharadwaj