Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rose Foods and Anr.

DRT11 Apr 2025TA/1894/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of Rs. 95 lakhs plus interest filed by Central Bank of India against M/s Rose Foods & Anr. The defendants were absent, and the bank's evidence was unrebutted. The Tribunal directed payment and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 95,40,384 along with interest and costs within 30 days; otherwise recovery through sale of hypothecated and other properties. Recovery certificate to be issued.

Central Bank of India versus M/S Rose Foods and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1894 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.1894 of 2022

¶5

Central Bank of India 882-883, Kidar Building Subzi Mandl, Delhi-110007 Applicant Versus 1.^{M/s Rose Foods & Anr.} Through its Proprietor Mr. Mohd. Aqil House no.3097, Gali Sushila Wali Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006 Also at: Shop No.22, Shaheed Asfaqullah khan Fish Market, Gazipur Delhi-110096 2. Mr. Mohd Aqil House no.3097, Gali Sushila Wali Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006 Also at: Shop no.22, Shaheed Asfaqullah Khan Fish market, Gazipur Defendants Delhi-110096 Present: Shri Tushar Mishra, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 07.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.04.2025

¶6

¶7

T.A. No. 1894 of 2022

¶8

FINAL ORDER

¶9

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before �^{Delhi on 07.07.2022 and then transferred} to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.Gaurav Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,40,384/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lacs Forty Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Four only ) as on 04.07.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 vide loan application dated 30.07.2019, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for a sum of Rs.70,00,000/(Rupees Seventy Lacs only) @8.35% interest with monthly rests against hypothecation of book debts, goods, etc. on 18.09.2019 covered under CGTMSE scheme. Further, the applicant bank sanctioned FITL loan of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs only) and Rs.13,70,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Seventy Thousand only) under GECL scheme on 01.05.2020 and 09.06.2020 respectively.

¶11

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Letter of Hypothecation, Supplementary Agreement, Letter of Continuity, DP Note, Letter of Waiver, Letter of Interest Variation in favour of the applicant bank on 23.09.2019.

¶12

¶13

T.A. No. 1894 of 2022

¶14

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.10.2021 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 25.11.2021 but the defendants neglected the same and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶15

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 04.09.2024, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶16

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Shri Gaurav Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1, Loan application Ex.AW-1/2, Sanction letter Ex.AW-1/3, Letter of Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/4, Agreement of Hypothecation Ex.AW-1/5, Supplementary Agreement Ex.AW-1/6(Colly), Letter of Continuity Ex.AW-1/7, DP Note Ex.W-1/8, Letter of Waiver Ex.AW-1/9, Letter of Interest Variation Ex.AW-1/10, Application dated 08.10.2020 Ex.AW-1/11, Legal Notice Ex.AW-1/12, Certified Statement of Account as per !tanker's Books of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/13.

¶17

¶18

T.A. No. 1894 of 2022

¶19

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 approved.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.95,40,384/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lacs Forty Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Four only) as on 04.07.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @9.50% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts and machinery, etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

T.A. No. 1894 of 2022

¶27

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.06.2025.

¶28

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

¶29

4 Sd —

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 11.04.2025

¶32

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rose Foods and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rose Foods and Anr.

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

Mr Mahadevappa and Gurushantappa Gibbur versus State Bank of India

Sri Babajigouda Satagouda Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs versus Canara Bank

Ms Shree Shyam Fashions versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Deepak Kumar

Canara Bank versus M/S Addu Mod Kidz

State Bank of India versus Sh. Naveen Kumar Saini