Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rohit Trading Co.

DRT22 Jan 2025TA/2031/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a loan of Rs.33.39 lakhs along with interest and costs. The defendant, a proprietorship concern, failed to regularize the account, leading to the bank classifying it as NPA. The defendant did not appear, and the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

The defendant directed to pay Rs.33,39,814.82 with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum within 30 days; recovery certificate issued for sale of hypothecated stocks.

Central Bank of India versus M/S Rohit Trading Co. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.2031 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 2031 of 2022

¶5

Central Bank of India 13 B, Netaji Subhash Road Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Rohit Trading Co. House No.216, Main Rampura Road Rumaal Wali Gali, Tri Nagar Village Rampura, Delhi-110032 Defendant

¶8

Present: Shri Aatreya Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶9

Date of Institution: 03.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 03.01.2022 filed before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Sh.Ashwani Sagar, 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.33,39,814.82 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fourteen & paisa Eighty Two only) together with pendentelite and future interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests and @2% penal interest from the date of filing of this application with costs.

¶12

T.A. No.2031 of 2022

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant being proprietorship concern of Sh.Rohit Avana in the business of trading of rice and pulses was sanctioned Cash Credit limit of Rs.50.00 lacs (Rupees Fifty Lacs only) on 28.11.2019 @9.50% interest subject to change from time to time by the applicant bank against hypothecation of stocks of rice, pulses, edible oil etc. In case of default in repayment of interest, the defendant agreed to pay @2% penal interest per annum on the overdue amount.

¶14

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant submitted Loan Application and executed Agreement of Hypothecation to secure demands Loan Agreement, Supplemental Loan Agreement, Letter of Continuity and Demand Promissory Note dated 28.11.2019 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶15

In order to secure the loan facility, defendant hypothecated the stock of pulses, Rice and Edible Oil etc. lying at their premises in favour of the applicant bank.

¶16

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and failed to comply with the terms and conditions despite of several requests / reminders but the defendant failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank due to which the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 29.112020 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal notice on 29.07.2021 but defendant could not regularize the account and not repay the dues of applicant bank.

¶17

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 09.07.2024, the

¶18

T.A. No.2031 of 2022

¶19

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.

¶20

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ashwini Sagar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex PW1/1, Sanction Letter Ex PW1/2, Agreement of Hypothecation to Secure Demand Loan Agreement & Supplementary Loan Agreement Ex PW1/3(colly), Demand Promissory Note Ex PW1/4, Letter of Continuity Ex PW1/5, Legal Notice Ex PW1/6, Certified Statement of Account under Banker's Evidence Act Ex PW1/7, Calculation Sheet of Overdue Amount Ex PW1/8.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

T.A. No.2031 of 2022

¶25

ORDER

¶26

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.33,39,814.82 (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fourteen & paisa Eighty Two only) together with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable personal properties of the defendant.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

C'd

¶31

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

¶32

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 22.01.2025

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rohit Trading Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. M/S Rohit Trading Co.

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.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S S G India Auto Dealer

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