Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Ms Akhil Industries

DRT30 Jan 2025OA/813/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank for recovery of Rs. 41.85 lakh. The court held the defendants liable jointly and severally, granted specific interest rates, and ordered that mortgaged and personal properties be sold for dues realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 41.85 lakh with interest; mortgaged and personal properties liable for dues; injunction against alienation; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Akhil Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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

Originat Application No, - 813123

¶5

lndian Overseas Bank, H.No.-253l2, Patwa Wali Gali, Town Ha[[ Ke Pass, Datia 475661

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Akhit lndustries, Through its Propreitor-

¶9

Mr. Nikhit Chourasiya

¶10

Mr. Nikhit Chaurasiya, S/o Mr. Vipin Bihari Chaurasiya

¶11

Mrs. lndira Chaurasiya^(since deceased) Through Legal Heirs^- a) Mr. Nikhit Chauraisya,

¶12

S/o Mr. Vipin Bihari Chauraisya

¶13

b) Mr. Akhit Chaurasiya. S/o Mr. Vipin Bihari Chaurasiya c) Mr. Vipin Bihari Chaurasiya

¶14

(Att at Barti ji Ka Bagicha, Ganesh Ghat, Datia, M.P. 475661) Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant : Shri Sanjeev Dubey,^Advocate

¶16

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(DatedlJ0rlanuary, 20 2 5 )

¶19

The Appticant-Bank has fited the^{present OriginalApplication} u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act on 10107/23 against the} Defendants for recovery of^Rs. 41,85,866.67^{(RupeesFourty OneLakh, Eighty} Five Thousand, Eight Hundred Sixty Six^{and PaisaSixtySevenonty)along} with interest and other reliefs^as stated.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that^{on the request of} Defendant No.-1 through its Proprietor^{DefendantNo'-2, the Appticant Bank} sanctioned Cash Credit Limit^{of Rs. 30 Lakh on05/06113, WCTL of Rs. 6 Lakh} on29l12/20 and^WCTL of^{Rs. t.50 Lakhon 24103122. ln considerationof the} sanction of credit facitities the^{DefendantNo.'1 & 2 as borrowerand} Defendant No.-3 lndira chaurasiya^{(since deceased)as guarantorin addition} to execution of loan and^{guarantee documents have atso createdequitabte}

¶21

¶22

oA 813/23

¶23

mortgage over the immovabte^properties of^{Defendant No.-3 (since} deceased), i.e.,

¶24

i) Residentiat Ptot 72/'1, Ward No.-3, Rajgarh^{Ward (otd) Mogiya} Ka Pura, Datia (M.P.) 475661 , admeasuring 1070 sq.ft.; ii) Residential Ptot 710l5, Rajgarh Ward^(otd) Mogiya Ka^Pura, Datia (M.P.) 475661 , admeasuring 1537 sq.ft.; iii) Residential Ptot 710l5, H.No.-23, Ward No.'3, Rajgarh Ward (otd) Mogiya Ka Pura, Datia (M.P.) 475661, admeasuring 1070 sq.ft.

¶25

The Defendant No.-1 and 2 availed the credit facitities and atso executed Revival Letters tastty on 29112121 but did not maintain satisfactory accounts. The Defendant No.-3 lndira Chaurasiya who was guarantor expired leaving behing Defendant No.-3(a) to 3(c) as her tegal heirs who have acquired the entire estate inctuding the mortgaged properties of the deceased. The accounts were classified as NPA and the Defendants faited to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Notice dated 20/08/22 u/s'l 3(2) of the Securitisation Act by the Appticant Bank. The AppticantBank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-21 which were proved by Ms Sutekha Pandey, Assistant Manager,

¶26

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23/02124. After the Defendants were proceeded ex-parte Shri Ashish Tripathi, Advocate, fited his vakatatnama on behalf of Defendant No.-2 who is atso the proprietor of Defendant No.-1 firm on 10/07 /24 but has not taken any steps/fited application for setti ng-aside / recatti ng the order dated 73/02/24. The Advocate for the Defendant also did not appear in the later proceeding. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. The Defendant No.-3(a) who is also Defendant No.-2 and is also the Proprietor of Defendant No.-1 concern as welt as one of the [ega[ heirs of deceased guarantor lndira Chaurasiya, has executed loan and security documents to secure the credit facilities, Therefore the tiabitity Defendant No.-2 is co-extensive with the tiabitity of Guarantor/Defendant No.-3 lndira Chaurasiya (since deceased). The Defendant No.-3(b) and 3(c) are impleaded being the [ega[ heirs of deceased guarantor/Defendant No.-3 lndira Chaurasiya and have not executed loan documents in their personal capacities. Therefore the tiabitity of Defendant No.-3(b) and 3(c) is restricted to the value of estate/assets inherited by them from the deceased guarantor. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants

¶27

¶28

oA 813/23

¶29

are^jointty and severatty liable to^pay the^{ctaim amount togetherwith} interest and costs. The Applicant-Bank^{in its apptication has ctaimed} interest at contractual rate but has not specified^{the prevailing rate of} interest. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte^{to grant interest @12% p.a.} simpte in cash credit account^{and interest@7} '00%^{p'a. simple in both the} WCTL accounts pendentelite and^future ti[[^{realization of the dues'The} mortgaged properties are tiabte to^{be sotd for recoveryof amount due atong} with the persona[^properties and assets of^{the DefendantNo.-1,2 and} deceased lndira Chaurasiya in the^{hands of Defendant No.-3(a) to 3(c).}

¶30

The Originat Apptication is attowed^{and it is orderedas under-}

¶31

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty and severattyRs. 41,85,866'67} (Rupees Fourty One Lakh, Eighty Five Thousand,^{Eight HundredSixty Six and} Paisa Sixty Seven onty) together^{withpendenteliteand futureinterest@12%} p.a. simpte in cash credit account and^interest @7.00y"^{p.a' simpte in both} the WCTL accounts from^{the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 10/07123,with} costs titt its reatization.^{The tiabitity of Defendant No.-3(b)and 3(c)is} restricted to the vatue of estate/assets^{inheritedby them from the deceased} guarantor lndira ChauraisYa.

¶32

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted^{to se[[ the mortgagedas we[[ as} personal properties and assets of the Defendant^{No.-1, 2 and deceasedlndira} chaurasiya in the hands of^{Defendant No.-3(a)to 3(c) for realizationof its} dues. The Defendants are^{hereby restrainedby means of injunctionfrom} depteting, transferring,^{encumbering, atienatingor in anyway deating with} the respective^{properties/ assetswithoutfirst paying the ctaim of the} App[icant Bank.

¶33

iii) A Recovery Certificate^{be issued uls 19(72) of Recovery of} Debts and Bankruptcy Act.^{The appticant bank may fite a memo of cost} within 7 days for^{preparingRecoveryCertificate.}

¶34

Judgment^{pronouncedin the open court on this 30th Day of January, 2025'}

¶35

,7 \ (Ram Niwas PateL) Presidine Officer

Indian Overseas Bank v. Ms Akhil Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Ms Akhil Industries

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 Nakoda Traders

State Bank of India versus M/S Shri Sidhhi Vinayak Plywood

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Harishyam Engineering

State Bank of India versus Kamal Kumar Chimnani

Ms J K Traders versus Indian Bank