Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi

DRT25 Apr 2025TA/1359/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application for recovery of dues, the Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for Rs. 12,28,948 along with interest and directed issuance of a recovery certificate to the Recovery Officer for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendant to pay Rs. 12,28,948 with pendentelite and future interest; issuance of recovery certificate to the Recovery Officer; enforcement via sale of hypothecated or other assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1359 of 2023

¶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. 1359 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India

¶6

(E-State Bank of Travancore) SMECC (East) branch Bhola Nath Nagar, Shandara, Delhi-110032

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh.Ajay Kumar Tyagi s/o Satyavir Singh Tyagi Proprietor M/s Odyssey Iformatics Systems D-1027, Tower-7, River Heights Society Raj Nagar Extension, Near G D Goenka Public School Ghaziabad, UP-201303

¶10

Also at:

¶11

B-108, Sector-63, Near Fortis Hospital Noida, UP-201301]

¶12

Also at:

¶13

As director of: M/s Odyssey Iformatics Systems Regd Office: 7133 BA, Tower-4 River Heights, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, UP-201303 Defendant

¶14

Present: Shri Jeewan Prakah Gupta, counsel for the applicant bank

¶15

Date of Institution: 20.07.2018

¶16

Date of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025

¶17

T.A. No.1359 of 2023

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 20.07.2018 through Mr. Rakesh Sharma, 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.12,28,948/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight only) as on 19.07.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum with monthly rest plus @2% simple overdue penal interest from 19.07.2018 till its realization and costs. Further, the name of Shri Arun Kumar Sharma was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh.Rakesh Sharma, erstwhile ARs for the applicant bank.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant vide application dated 01.12.2015 as proprietor of M/s Odyssey Iformatics Systems, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit (Hyp.) facility of Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.12.2015 @9.95% rate of interest under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana & liable to pay 2% penal interest for overdue amount for carrying on business of IT products and Solutions/installations against hypothecation of stocks and book debts, which was further renewed on 17.12.2016.

¶21

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application dated 01.12.2015 and executed Letter of Arrangement/Sanction, Hypothecation cum Working Capital Agreement, Undertakings for not to utilize sanctioned credit facility for any speculative purpose, Not to induct person under RBI Defaulter, Letter of Authority/Consent, Letter of 54-

¶22

T.A. No.1359 of 2023

¶23

Arrangement all dated 10.12.2015 and 17.12.2016 with applicant bank.

¶24

That in order to secure the credit facility, defendant created book debts and stocks in order as prime security with the applicant bank.

¶25

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the sanction terms and conditions, not routed their business transactions through the account despite several requests and reminders. The account became irregular and the applicant bank classified the account as Non-Performing Asset on 28.12.2017 and served legal demand notice dated 02.06.2018 to clear the outstanding amount along with interest but defendant failed to comply the said notice. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶26

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant chose to absent from the proceedings and none appeared on behalf of defendant, hence proceed ex-parte. As per order dated 21.12.2023, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte due to non-filing of written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets before this Tribunal.

¶27

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Arun Kumar Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Gazette Notification Ex.AW1/1(colly), Application Form Ex.AW1/2, Letter of Arrangement / Sanction Ex.AW1/3, Hypothecation-cum-Working Capital Agreement

¶28

T.A. No.1359 of 2023

¶29

Ex.AW1/4, Undertaking Ex.AW1/5 to Ex.AW1/7, Letter of Authority Ex.AW1/8, Letter of Arrangement dated 17.02.2016 Ex.AW1/9, Letters for Regularisation Ex.AW1,.10 to Ex.AW1/13(colly), Email Ex.AW1/14(colly), Letters Ex.AW1/15 to Ex.AW1/17, Legal Demand Notice Ex.AW1/18, Potal Receipts Ex.AW1/19(colly), Unserved Envelops Ex.AW1/20 to AW1/22, Statements of Accounts Ex.AW1/23 to Ex.AW1/25

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

In the light of the above discussions and documents on record, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a sum of Rs.12,28,948/(Rupees Twelve Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum with monthly rest and costs from 19.07.2018, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts. In

¶35

¶36

T.A. No.1359 of 2023

¶37

case of default the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶38

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

¶39

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 24.06.2025.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 25.04.2025

State Bank of India v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sandeep Gupta Commission Agent versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt,.Subhadrabai

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Highcity Infrastructures Pv Ltd. Rep by Its Directors Sri.R. Umashankar and Smt.H.Devika

Sreekala K S versus State Bank of India

Sri Umakanthraju C versus Srujana Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha

Union Bank of India versus G S Chethan