Allowed

State Bank of India v. Anjulata

DRT31 Jan 2025OA/837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by State Bank of India against the legal heirs of a deceased borrower. The court ordered repayment of the principal amount, pendent lite interest, and a Recovery Certificate, limiting liability to the value of the inherited estate.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 36,09,205 plus interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued; Injunction granted against transfer of inherited assets.

State Bank of India versus Anjulata — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TR!BUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

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

¶4

Original Application No. - 837/23

¶5

State Bank of lndia,

¶6

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Block B-1, Pujari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

Appticant

¶8

Versus

¶9

01 ) Smt. Anjutata Sao, W/o Late Mukteshwar Sao

¶10

071 Smt. Kamta Sao, M/o Late Mukteshwar Sao

¶11

1. Shri Yogesh Kumar Sao, S/o Late Mukteshwar Sao

¶12

1. Shri Jaiprakash Sao, S/o Late Mukteshwar Sao

¶13

1. Ms Usha Kiran Sao, D/o Shri Mukteshwar Sao

¶14

(Att Legat Heir of Mukteshwar Sao, At Vittage & Post-Ankira, Mohatta-Savpara,

¶15

Ward No.^- l 3, Police Station-Tumta,

¶16

Tehsi [- Pharsabahar, Distt.^-Jashpur, C. G. 496245)

¶17

..... Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Jagbandan Patet, Advocate

¶19

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Dated : 31't January, 2025)

¶22

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Original Apptication uls 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 07/07/23 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 36,09,205.00 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh, Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Five onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of M/s Shri Sai Fty Ash Bricks through its Proprietor Mukteshwar Sao (since deceased), the Appticant Bank sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 25 Lakh and Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 7.50 Lakh aggregating Rs. 32.50 Lakh on 73101 /17 and ln consideration of the same the Late Mukteshwar Sao in addition to execution

¶24

¶25

oA837123

¶26

of loan documents has also created equitabte mortgage over the^immovable property, i.e., a[[ part and parcel of diverted land and buitding situated at Vit[age-Ankira, P.C. No.-'14, Khasra No.-96l4, Tehsit'Pharasbahar, DistrictJashpur (C.G.), area 0.202 hectare. The deceased Mukteshwar Sao availed the credit facitities and atso executed Balance Confirmation Letters lastty on 01 /01 121 and Revival Letters lastty on 16103/72 but did not maintain financial disciptine. The borrower Mukteshwar Sao expired on 04/05/22 leaving behind Defendant No.-1 to 5 as his legat heirs who have interited his estate. The accounts were ctassified as NPA and the Defendants faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legal Notice on 01 106123 by the Appticant Bank. The Applicant-Bank has retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-9 which were proved by Shri Harish Chandra Ahirwar, Chief Manager.

¶27

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 73/02124. Admittedty Defendant No.-1 to 5 are impteaded as Defendants being the Legal Heirs of deceased borrower/Proprietor of Shri Sai Fty Ash Bricks Mukteshwar Sao and these Defendants have not executed loan documents in their personaI capacity to secure the credit facilities sanctioned to Shri Sai Fty Ash Bricks represented through its Proprietor deceased Mukteshwar Sao. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointly and severalty liabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs. However, the tiabitity of Defendant No.-1 to 5 is restricted to the vatue of estate/assets inherited by them from the deceased Mukteshwar Sao. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest @13% p.a. with monthty rests in term loan account and interest @'15.50%^p.a. with^{monthly rests in cash credit account.However,lfeet it} fair and reasonabte to^grant interest @12%^p,a. simple in both the^loan accounts pendentetite and future titl reatization of the dues.^{The mortgaged} property is liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due along with the personal properties and assets of the deceased Mukteshwar Sao inherited by the Defendant No.-1 to 5.

¶28

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

¶29

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty} and severatty^{Rs. 36,09,205.00} (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh, Nine Thousand, Two Hundred^{and Five only)} together with^pendenteLite and^{future interest@12Yoper annum simptefrom}

¶30

¶31

oA.837/23

¶32

the date of fiting of the OA, i.e.,07/07/23, with costs titl its reatization. The tiabitity of Defendant No.-1 to 5 is however restricted to the vatue of estate/assets inherited by them from the deceased Mukteshwar Sao.

¶33

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitled to se[[ the mortgaged as wetl as personal properties and assets of the deceased Mukteshwar Sao inherited by the Defendant No.-1 to 5 for reatization of its dues. The Defendant No-1 to⁵ are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way dealing with the^{properties/assets of} deceased Mukteshwar Sao without first^paying the ctaim of^{the Appticant} Bank.

¶34

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(22) of^Recoveryof 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 31't^{Day of January, 2025.}

¶36

\ ?^'t' (Ram Niwas Patet) Presidinq Officer

State Bank of India v. Anjulata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Anjulata

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ashoke Shrivastava

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Akhil Industries

Ms J K Traders versus Indian Bank

Idbi Bank versus Uma Nayak

Idbi Bank versus Inderpal Singh

Canara Bank versus M/S Sati Kewal Ram Traders