Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Megha Ploymer Ors.

DRT29 Apr 2025TA/264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 RDB Act for recovery of outstanding loan dues. The defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. The bank was directed to recover the principal sum along with interest and costs from the gratuitous sale of the mortgaged properties and other assets.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,05,54,989 with interest at 12% and expenses within 30 days, recoverable from the sale of mortgaged properties and other assets.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Megha Ploymer Ors. — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

/'\

¶2

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi TA No.264 OF 2OZg INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS M/S MEGHA POTYMER & oRs

¶3

Reserved on : 06.02.2025 Pronounced on : 29.04.2025

¶4

Indian Overseas Bank -^Applicant bank Vs.

¶5

M/s Megha polymer

¶6

Mr. Mahender Singh

¶7

Smt. Ruchisingh

¶8

Defendants

¶9

Present: Ms. Sweety Sood Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are expafte since 24.t2.2024

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This original application has been filed by the applicant ban( on 13.03.2015 through Shri. M. Muthuvel Chidambaram, Assistant General Manager and Principal Offlcer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,05,54,ggg/_ together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @76.250/o from date of filing of this O.A. tiil the realization in full.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned an Open Cash Credit (OCC) Facitity of Rs.81,00,000/_ against the security of their assets to meet the fund requirement to purchase raw material etc., vide sanction letter dated 27.08.2010. To secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant no.2 offered his prope(v for eguitable

TA NO. 264t2023

mortgage with the bank vide property No. 120, C_2, 25.90 &. Mtrs. Sector-16, Rohini. Smt. Mamta Bhardwaj also offered her property no.l2t, C-2,2590 Sq. Mtrs. Sector-16, Rohini for mortgage as a Guarantor. The defendant no.3 gave her personal guarantee and signed the guarantee deed. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents dated 01.09.2010 and LL.OZ.ZOLZ-.

¶17

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was classified as NpA on 31.0g.2012. Therefore, the applicant bank served a legal notice dated 10.09.2012 and demand notice dated 23.LO.ZOLI to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.AffA is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶18

On notice by this Tribunal, the defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, all the defendants were proceeded against expafte on 24.L2.2024.

¶19

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. P.C Satapathy, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure-A to Annexure A-I along with the OA which have gone unchallenged and un_ rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to non-payment of EMI/ outstandinq amount.

TA NO. 264/2023

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents lead by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶24

In the light of the above discussiong the present TA deserves to be allowed.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to pay joinUy and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.1,05,54,g8g/_ along with cost, expenses and interest @ l2o/o from the date of filing of this O.A which has become TA till the date of realization.

¶27

In case of failure to deposit the above amount

¶28

within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets and the sale of the mortgaged property bearing No. 120, C-2, 25.90 Sq. Mtrs. Sector-16, Rohini and property bearing no.727, C-2,25.90 Sq. Mtrs. Sector-16, Rohini. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos. 1to 3.

¶29

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶30

TA NO. 264/2023

¶31

¶32

The registry of this Tribunar is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

¶33

Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 30.06.2025. pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶34

File be consigned to records.

¶35

--s--

¶36

Date: 29.04.2025 (su_sHI_L KUMAR d\Srocr) PRESIDING OFEICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶37

This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶38

s.J

¶39

Date:29.04.2025

¶40

(susHrl KUM-AR RASTOGT) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT.II, De|hi

¶41

Indian Overseas Bank v. Megha Ploymer Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Megha Ploymer Ors.

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