Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S Mahamayaa Agro Tech

DRT5 May 2025OA/822/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 3,72,31,114.59 along with interest at 12% p.a. from the Defendants, who were proceeded ex-parte, and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 3,72,31,114.59 with interest @12% p.a.; assets restrained from encumbrance; Recovery Certificate issued under Section 19(2).

Bank of India versus M/S Mahamayaa Agro Tech — 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

Originol Applicotion No.^- 822/23

¶5

Bank of India, Samvet Shikhar Buitding, l-front of Ekatma Parisar, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Mahamaya Agro Tech,

¶9

01 ) Through anyone of its PartnersShri Amit Kumar Mishra and Shri Devendra Mishra, Office at LIG-636, CGHB Cotony, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.); Showroom at: Khasra No.-906, N.H.-53, Laharand Padar, Near Anjati Hospital, Pithora, Distt.^-Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶10

1. Shri Amit Kumar Mishra, 5/o Shri Ba[ Krishna Mishra

¶11

1. Shri Devendra Kumar Mishra, 5/o Shri Dev Narayan Mishra

¶12

04\ Shri Raj Narayan Mishra, S/o Late Rama Shankar Mishra

¶13

(2 to 4 R/o LIG-636, CGHB Cotony,

¶14

Tatibandh, Riapur, C.G.)

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, Advocate Defendants : Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Dated : 05th May, 2025)

¶19

The Applicant-Bank has fited the^present Original^Application u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy^{Act on 11/07/23 against the} Defendants for recovery of Rs. 3,22,31,114.59^{(RupeesThree Crore, Twenty} Two Lakh, Thirty One Thousand, One Hundred Fourteen and^{PaisaFifty Nine} only) atong 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 Partners Defendant^{No.-2&' 3, the Appticant} Bank sanctioned Cash Credit^{(Hypothecation)} Limit of^{Rs. 200 Lakh on}

¶21

¶22

oA822t23

¶23

30/09/15 which was renewed on 18/03/17, Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) of Rs. 39.20 Lakh on 26t06/20 and Covid-19 Emergency Support Scheme (CESS) Line of Rs. 20 Lakh on 0B/07/ZO. ln consideration of the sanction of credit facitities the Defendant No.-1 through its parties Defendant No.-2 & 3 as borrowers and Defendant No.-4 as guarantor in addition to execution of loan and guarantee documents have atso created equitabte mortgage over the immovabte properties betonging to Defendant No.-4, i.e.,

¶24

i) Ptot No.-6, bearing part of Khasra No.-.14gl1, area measuring 2000 sq.ft., P.H. No.-104, situated at Ward No.-6g, Mahadeep Rao Sapre Ward, Vittage-Danganiya, Tehsit & District-Raipur (C.G.);

¶25

ii) Plot No.-24, bearing part of Khasra No.-601126, 61 /121 , area measuring 1800 sq.ft., P.H. No.-15l21, situated at Anusstha Residency, Vittage-Junwani, Tehsit & district-Durg (c.G.) together with construction made thereon;

¶26

iii) Ptot No.-44lC, bearing part of Khasra No.- 60/123, 61 /118, area measuring 1200 sq.ft., P.H. No.-15121, situated at Anusstha Residency, vit[age-Junwani, Tehsi[ & district-Durg (c.G.) together with construction made thereon.

¶27

The Defendant No.-'l to 3 avaited the credit facitities and atso executed Acknowledgment(s) of Debt and securities tastty on 25/06/20 but did not adhere to financiat disciptine. The accounts were classified as NpA and the Defendants faited to tiquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legat Notice on 10/05/23 and initiation of action under the securitisation Act by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-42 which were proved by Shri Satyanarayana Prasad, Asstt. GeneraI Manager.

¶28

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17/09/24. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatly tiable to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs, The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @15% p.a. with monthty rests. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @12% p.a. simple pendentetite and future titt reatization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are tiabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due along with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶29

¶30

oA 822t23

¶31

The Original App[ication is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶32

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severalty Rs. 3,72,31,114.59 (Rupees Three Crore, Twenty Two Lakh, Thirty One Thousand, One Hundred Fourteen and Paisa Fifty Nine only) together with pendentetite and future interest @127. per annum simpte from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 11/07 /23 , with costs ti[[ its reatization.

¶33

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to se[[ the mortgaged as welt as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way deating with their properties / assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶34

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The applicant bank may fite a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶35

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 05th Day ofMay, 2025.

¶36

(Ram Niwas^€' Pate t) Presidin er

Bank of India v. M/S Mahamayaa Agro Tech

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S Mahamayaa Agro Tech

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

Mukesh Dongre versus Iquitas Small Finance Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Vardhan Industries

Hdfc Bank versus Rakesh Singh

Rajesh Kumar patwa versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Ms Bolbam Company and Anothersprop Rita Singh versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Ms Jai Bhagwati Industries versus Bank of India