Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S S G India Auto Dealer

DRT22 Jan 2025TA/135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for outstanding dues of approximately Rs. 27.9 lacs along with interest, ordering the defendant to pay within 30 days or face recovery from hypothecated assets and properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate directed to be issued for Rs. 27,91,850/ plus interest; recovery from sale of hypothecated assets and defendant properties in case of shortfall.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S S G India Auto Dealer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 135 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.135 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

Block 15A, WEA Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s S G India Auto Dealer

¶10

Proprietor Sh.Rohit Gond s/o Sh.Awdhesh Gond Office: 302, 3rd Floor, 929/1, Naiwala Market, Near Jhandewalan Metro New Delhi-110005

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Present: Ms Chitra Malhotra, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Institution: 11.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 11.04.2022 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Sunil Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,91,850/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty only) as on 12.03.2022 out of which Rs.22,73,939/- @9.30%, Rs.4,83,362/- @7.88% and Rs.34,549/- @7.50% together with pendentelite and future interest per annum from the date of filing of this application till its realization with costs.

¶16

T.A. No. 135 of 2022

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant through its proprietor, the applicant bank sanctioned Overdraft facility of Rs.9.50 lacs (Rupees Nine Lacs Fifty Thousand only) for business purpose on 19.01.2018 which was enhanced to Rs.17.00 lacs @9.30% interest on 08.02.2019, Vehicle loan of Rs.4,77,500/- @7.88% on 01.11.2018 for purchase of Swift DCX Car, Additional Working Capital term Loan of Rs.3.40 lacs @7.50% interest on 19.06.2020. On further request of defendant, an amount of Rs.32,215/@7.88% interest was sanctioned for restructuring FITL facility on 22.01.2021. The loan facilities were sanctioned on the interest rates subject to change from time to time and additional @2% penal interest in case of default against hypothecation of stock and book debts covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶18

That in order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendant through its proprietor executed DP Note, Letter of Sole Proprietorship, Letter of Undertaking, Letter of Continuing Security, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Composite Hypothecation cum Undertaking, Instrument of Hypothecation of Vehicle, Letter of Installment with Acceleration Clause, Letter of Authority, Declaration cum Undertaking cum Authority, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Supplemental Composite Agreement of Hypothecation, Undertaking for CGMSE and Undertakings, Power of Attorney for Book Debts and Deed of FITL on various dates between 19.01.2018 and 15.02.2021.

¶19

That in order to secure the credit facilities, defendant proprietor hypothecated the stock, book debt, along with Swift DCX Car with the applicant bank.

¶20

The defendant through its proprietor confirmed and acknowledge the debts towards applicant bank by executing

¶21

T.A. No. 135 of 2022

¶22

Letter of Acknowledgement of Debts on 08.02.2019, 30.05.2020, 23.06.2020 and 13.10.2021 with applicam bank.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to honor its commitments as per terms and conditions of the sanction and failed to repay the overdue interest despite regular follow up. Ultimately, the applicant bank called upon the defendant to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank. The account was classified as NPA on 30.04.2021 by applicant bank as per RBI guidelines but defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 30.07.2021 was issued by the applicants to the defendant for repayment of entire dues but defendant failed to repay entire dues.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 08.01.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendant.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Sunil Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/'., Loan Application Exhibit AW1/2, AW1/10, AW1/18, AW1/34, Sanction Letter Exhibit AW1/3, AW1/11, AW1/19, AW1/35 & 5V-

¶27

T.A. No. 135 of 2022

¶28

AW1/48, DP Note Exhibit AW1/4, AW1/12, AW1/20 & AW1/37, Letter of Sole Proprietorship Exhibit AW1/5, AW1/25 & AW1/38, Letter of Undertaking Exhibit AW1/6, AW1/27, AW1/36 & AW1/43, Letter of Continuing Security Exhibit AW1/7 & AW1/21, Composite Hypothecation Agreement Exhibit AW1/8 & AW1/23, Composite Undertaking-cum-Declaration Exhibit AW1/9 & AW1/26, Hypothecation of Vehicle Exhibit AW1/13, Letter of Installment Exhibit AW1/14 & AW1/39 Letter of Authority Exhibit AW1/15 & AW1/40, Declaration cum Undertaking Exhibit AW1/16 & AW1/44 Irrevocable Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/17, Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/24 & AW1/41, Undertaking for CGTMSE Exhibit AW1/28 & AW1/45, Undertakings Exhibit AW1/29 to AW1/31, Letters of Acknowledgement Exhibit AW1/32, AW1/33, AW1/46 and AW1/50, Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement Exhibit AW1/42, Restructuring Application Exhibit AW1/47 and Sanction Letter Exhibit AW1/48, Deed of FITL Exhibit AW1/49. Notice u/s 13(2) Exhibit AW1/51(colly), Certified Statement of Accounts Exhibit AW1/57.

¶29

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶30

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶31

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

T.A. No. 135 of 2022

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.27,91,850/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty only) as on 12.03.2022 out of which

¶36

On Rs.22,73,939/- @9.30%,

¶37

On Rs.4,83,362/- @7.88% and

¶38

Rs.34,549/- @7.50%

¶39

together with pendentelite and future interest from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated stocks, book debts and Swift DCX Car. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶40

II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶41

III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 24.03.2025.

¶42

IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶43

** 5d-_**

¶44

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶45

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 22.01.2025

Bank of Baroda v. M/S S G India Auto Dealer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S S G India Auto Dealer

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 Saraj Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Ishtiyaq Ahmad Kasana

Ashok Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Janaki Traders and Ors.

The South Indian Bank Limited versus M/S Als Satellite Education Private Limited

Poonam Bazar through Its Director Archana Deepak Wani versus Union Bank of India