Allowed

Idbi Bank v. M/s Shri Sai Footwear

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/988/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. The court ordered the payment of Rs. 31,97,641.28 plus interest at 11.50% per annum and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The mortgaged and personal properties of the respondents are liable for sale for realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 31,97,641.28 plus 11.50% p.a. interest; Recovery Certificate issued under Section 19(7); Realization ordered from mortgaged and personal assets.

Idbi Bank versus M/s Shri Sai Footwear — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

CONTD. ORDER. SHEET

PAGE NO

CASE NO

DATE DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER REMARK
oA 988/23
25/07 t25 Judgment pronounced in the Open Court Camp at
Raipur. Copy of Judgment be issued to the parties as
per rules. Record be consigned to the Record Room.
wnt w
(R as Patet) ),^t
Presiding officer
DRT : Jabatpur
Camp Court : Raipu r

¶5

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶6

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶7

cArAP COURT AT RATPUR^(C.G.)

¶8

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

¶9

Original Applicotion No.^- 988123

¶10

lDBl Bank Ltd., 104-R.8. Towers, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Appticant

¶12

Versus

¶13

M/s Shri Sai Footwear,

¶14

Shop No.-88, Sardar Vatlabhbhai Patet Nagar Nigam Wholesale Market, Near Shankaracharya Mandir, Dumartarai, District-Raipur (C.G.) 492001

¶15

Rajeev Tharwani, S/o Shri Laxmi Chand Tharwani

¶16

Smt. Simran Tharwani, W/o Shri Rajeev Tharwani

¶17

(2 & 3 R/o House No. E-159, Sector-S,

¶18

Behind Jataram Provision Stores,

¶19

Devendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 492009)

¶20

Defendants

¶21

Counsel for the Applicant : Shri Amit Garg, Advocate

¶22

Defendants : Ex-parte

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

(Dated : 25th Juty, 2025)

¶25

The Appticant-Bank has fited the present Originat Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 23108123 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 31,97,641 .28 (Rupees Thirty One Lakh, Ninety Seven Thousand, Six Hundred Fourty One and Paisa Twenty Eight onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1 atong with Defendant No.-2, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 30 Lakh on 08/03/16 which was subsequentty renewed and lastty reduced to Rs. 22.50 Lakh on 27/08/21.1n consideration of the sanction of credit facitity the Defendant No.-1 as borrower and Defendant No.-2 & 3 as guarantors in addition to execution of loan and

¶27

¶28

oA 988i23

¶29

guarantee documents have atso created equitable mortgage over the immovable property, i.e., Leasehotd Commercial Shop bearing Ptot No.5168, Btock No.-8, area 538 sq.ft., part of Khasra No.-397l5, situated at Raipur Vikas Pradhikaran, Vitlage-Rawabhata Transport Nagar, Dr. Khubchand Baghel Ward, Ward No.-67, P.H. No.-100, R.l.C. Raipur, Tehsit & District-Raipur (C.G.); betonging to Defendant No.-1. The Defendants availed the credit faci[ities but faited to [iquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of RecalI Notices, 108120, 18112121 and Guarantee lnvocation Notice on 13/01 122 and initiation of action under the Securitisation Act by the Applicant Bank. The Applicant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-14 which were proved by Mrs. Lissa Sahoo, Manager & Recovery Officer.

¶30

3, Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30101 125, 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 severalty liable to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Applicant-Bank in its apptication has ctaimed interest at contractuaI rate but has not specified the^prevaiting rate of interest. However, I feel it fair and reasonable to^grant interest @11^.50%p.a. simpte pendente[ite and future titl reatization of the dues. The mortgaged property is liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the^personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶31

The Original Apptication is attowed and it is ordered^{as under-}

¶32

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty} and^{severalty Rs. 31} ,97,641^,28 (Rupees Thirty One Lakh, Ninety Seven Thousand, Six^{HundredFourty One} and Paisa Twenty Eight onty) together^{with pendentetite and futureinterest} @1 1.50%^{per annum simptefrom the dateof fiting of the OA, i.e.' 23 /08123'} with costs titl its realization.

¶33

ii) The Applicant Bank is entitted^{to setl the mortgagedas we[[ as} persona[ properties and assets of the.Defendants^{for reatization of its dues.} The Defendants are^{hereby restrained by means of injunctionfrom} depleting, transferring,^{encumbering,atienating or in any way deating with} their properties/assets^{without first paying the ctaim of the AppticantBank.}

¶34

.,)

¶35

oA 98tt/23

¶36

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued u/s^{19(72\ of Recoveryof} Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant^{bank may file a memo of cost} within 7 days for^preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶37

Judgment pronounced in the^{open court on this 25th Day of Juty, 2025 at} Camp Court Raipur.

¶38

I
2

¶39

(Ram was Pate[) Presidin Officer

Idbi Bank v. M/s Shri Sai Footwear

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. M/s Shri Sai Footwear

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Simran Group of Industries

Idbi Bank versus Dayaluram Markam

State Bank of India versus Domar Singh Sahu

Central Bank of India versus Vikas Kumar

State Bank of India versus Sheela Patel

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sarweshwari Minerals through Its Proprietor- Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh